So the long-winded scarcely-coherent attacks — how long are we expected to be subjected to it, exactly? I'm sorry, I didn't really understand why you found his last UTRS post that much better than any of the other ones, but I did expect you to keep somewhat of an an eye. As the admin who un-revoked TPA, it is sort of your responsibility, no? Sorry for the bluntness of this message. El_C06:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: No, at least for now, (3am) let's let it ride during the unblock request. Looks like they cannot put down the shovel. Actually was concise and on point at UTRS. That it could not last is hurting their request. Taling themselve into a decline, it looks like. I don't think you are being objective and should probably mute their replies. Starting to ramble myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WP:AN thread has reached its conclusion and, as an uninvolved admin, plan to close it. I have no objection if you remove TPA but if you prefer, I can do so once I close the thread. I'll wait for your response (and to make sure there are no last-minute comments in the WP:AN thread). --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if these appear to be related because the former was advised, in the notice about their username, that alternatively, you can just create a new account and use that for editing ? Dorsetonian (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see that you removed a speedy deletion notice from this page, stating that it was a "simple introduction by a longish term user." While this would be true if this was in userspace, the problem is that it is not -- if it were in userspace, it would be formatted like this: User:Masai giraffe. Formatted the way it is in the heading, it is in main article space, hence the nomination for speedy deletion. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, since I saw you had reverted the notice from the page. In addition, I am linking the actual userpage so this user can see this, in the event that they made a mistake. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to indeff that account - I have some suspicion that it is Supreme Genghis Khan. See Fried Chicken Supreme's edits [1][2][3] and Fried Chicken Soldier's edits [4][5] for comparison. According to Girth Summit, Fried Chicken Soldier is confirmed to accounts like British Genghis which show typical Supreme Genghis Khan behavior - see [6] and this edit [7] for more info. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs15:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi deepfriedokra ohnoitsjamie just threatened to misuse to tools about the fall
info removed it’s on my talk page that’s what I was talking about Masai Giraffe (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you Please Suggest Me where I,m Doing Wrong? should I remove All the Links? Can You Please help me Edit this Document? Cena.aly (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cena.aly: New article creation is very hard. My initial attempts (via my long ago abandoned first account) were deleted, and I'd made many edits prior to those attempts. I recommend gaining experience in encyclopedia building before trying to create a new article. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did that Already, But you removed the Article Now i have Consulted to An expert, He will Fix all the Issue and Republish, Hope this time the Page will be active Cena.aly (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just blocked them. If they've never edited its a waste of time to report them, but its definitely a waste of time to give them a template message. We can't keep it on the board to see if they ever return, so I soft blocked. Secretlondon (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...has only the one "e" in it. And that's how AssociateAffiliate's sig is spelled, too, not as "StickeyWicket", which is what you renamed them to. Was that at their request, or did you do it of your accord after seeing WP:ANI#AssociateAffiliate's sig? —Cryptic00:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, duh, I was looking at the wrong log. Irritating that it's at the old username and not the new one. Also that the box at Special:Log tries very hard to make you follow the redirect to the new name. (And, also duh, I should've known better than to think you'd consider renaming sua sponte.) Still, mere mortals can't see m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/108322, so the gist of my question stands - was the misspelling theirs or yours? —Cryptic01:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am an known artist here in my country,a public person, i have a lot of collaborations, songs, music videos and i just want to do a wikipedia page for the artist. There are people that wrote here about me, but i cannot be tagged and people cannot find me because i dont have a page on wikipedia. The page creation is hard to use here and i know now that i made some mistakes, but the page that i want to create is not intended to promote me, just to solidify my presence online.
If my page is deleted....how can me (as an artist) can be on wikipedia?
hi. My name is Nick. You just deleted my page. i`m trying to make a page for me (artist, public person) and i cant do it because it seems that wiki is saying that i`m trying to promote myself. I am not doing that, but i need a page because i`m remembered on other pages too, and i`m trying to solidify my presence online with it......
I am CiaPan, this user talk page's watcher, and I'd like to explain that ″solidifying your presence online″ is exactly what ″promotion″ means in Wikipedia (strictly speaking, it's a ″self-promotion″). Please see the page about What Wikipedia is not, especially the section on Promotion.
Please also be warned that An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, because such article may have unexpected, and sometimes unwanted effects. So, even if you meet required criteria as a subject for a Wikipedia article, AND you fulfill requirements related to WP:COI, AND you manage to write such article in an impartial tone from a WP:Neutral point of viewAND you'll find and present sufficient WP:Sources – reliable, independent from you and establishing your notability, which means your importance as ″an artist and public person″ (i.e. not just mentioning your existence) – even then sometimes it's better to not have a Wikipedia article about yourself. --(talk page stalker)CiaPan (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For guidance please read the deletion notice I left on your talk. Please follow the links. Please follow instructions and take in information. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deepfried, I think this has reached the point of needing creation protection given this is now the 4th time it has been G11 deleted and creator is now sock blocked. Either that or restore it and leave it be as honey pot? S0091 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While reverting, I divulged name of my employer's username here. Can you please revdel the edit, I'll inform the user whose edit I reverted in their talk page on why I reverted them. That would be a great help. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gus1001 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!
Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
Regarding your block of this newbie editor, you know they wrote an article about a village called Lalbazgaray. So, I don't think they were promoting themselves (which we see a lot of from new editors), rather they named themselves after their town and created the article and category for the village. This seems more like a new editor mistake than self-promotion. I don't know if this will cause you to rethink your block but I thought I would clarify things as I looked into this case a little when I came across the empty category. Thanks and I hope you are having a pleasant summer! LizRead!Talk!23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked, though the editing pattern was problematical. Thanks
(talk page stalker)@Liz: Hmm. The reason in the block notice on the talk page may not have been ideal, as it doesn't seem to have been "self-promotion", but if we leave out "self", I think "promotion" is a reasonable description of spamming mentions of Lalbazgaray into various pages where it was irrelevant, and the attempt to hijack the article Lodi Khel was totally unacceptable, in my opinion a form of vandalism. I would probably have gone for a warning of a likely block if the disruptive editing continued, rather than an immediate block, but I don't see the block as totally unreasonable. JBW (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, trust your instincts, you two have both been doing this longer than I have. I came across this editor in my work tagging empty categories so I looked into their recent edits and why they were blocked. If you still they are being promotional, then go ahead. Generally, you need to see more edits from an editor to determine their true intent and if that's your conclusion, then act on it. But thanks, Deepfriedokra, I rarely ask for an admin to reconsider a block they made and I appreciate you being open to it. I know all of those years evaluating WP:UTRS unblock requests has made you wiser then I am at judging the sincerity of a blocked editor. LizRead!Talk!04:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you had tagged this article for speedy deletion for being promotional. I understand completely how Wikipedia doesn't allow any promotional edits, but I hadn't even put the page for review yet. I can confirm that this wasn't in any way a paid edit or was being done for any promotional purposes. I was in the process of looking up more reliable sources in accordance with WP:Reliable sources. The subject is a popular philanthropist in Pakistan and met WP:GNG. Has extensive coverage on all major reliable local media outlets and I am pretty sure someone who is working for WikiProject Pakistan would be able to confirm this. Again, the submission hadn't been sent for review yet, so I am not sure if the speedy deletion is justified. It was a draft which I was working on and would've taken out any information for which I couldn't find reliable sources. Could you please review and revert your decision in this regard and let me complete the draft and submit it for review? Youzra (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Regarding this matter, I had actually considered contacting you after the unsatisfactory response I got... but I likely would have been accused of WP:ADMINSHOP. I'm glad you raised some objections on your own. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: The response was subpar, but you were right to refrain. It's Lourde's baby now. I like the comment from the user with ~60 edits. I'll watch that talk page and the draft. We'll see what develops. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! You're on the Recently Active Admins list—I left this for Acroterion earlier but he seems to have stepped away (i.e. I'm not admin-shopping, I'm looking for a "store" that's open...) New user User:RealReel5 is adding links to dubious "green" certification websites for, e.g., cattle feed and chocolate ([2], [3]) and then pedantically arguing with the likes of Zefr and Oknazevad about why the spammy links are better. Please take a look. Thanks! Julietdeltalima(talk)18:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! Both of those users decided to go to my Talk Page, not the other way around (similarly, you are, dare I say, "aggressively" name-dropping my username here.)
Speaking of dubious, I'd be inclined to believe your standards of what's considered a "new user" are just that: I've been a user here since October 2021. Must I have 100,000 edits & many years worth of activity to be considered aged, in any way?
The certification in question is not "green," if you mean that in a pejorative sense; additionally, the Cocoa solids/Dark chocolate/Chocolate edits I made have nothing to do with "certifications" of any kind.
I would like whatever version of that article had the largest size and most content. Please include any talk page that is most complete, in case there are links or references there I may use to help build the article from and design it on my own user space.
Anywhere in my user space is fine. Please just let me know where to find it. Thank you.
(talk page stalker) Wow! A query about an admin action you took, more than 15 years after the event! I wonder whether that's an all time record. And to think that I was impressed by the fact that I'd once got one after 10 years... JBW (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deepfriedokra. Someone showed up at WP:RFPP/D curious about your protection of Draft:Pison Peak. You ECP'd the whole draft, but from the log summary ("Non AFC reviewers should not be moving declined afc submissions"), I was wondering if you just meant to apply move protection? Currently new users can't edit the draft at all, which I don't think is what you intended. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Olefinishad, I can't speak on behalf of Deepfriedokra, but his talk page is on my watchlist so I'll give you my thoughts. If the article you want to write is going to be anything like the userpage that you wrote, and which was deleted per the WP:G11 criteria as blatant advertising, then you are unlikely to meet with success. You also need to comply with the guidance at WP:PAID before doing any further work in this direction. GirthSummit (blether)18:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Olefinishad: I concur with what my colleague Girth Summit has written. Further, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- it does not have "company pages." It does have encyclopedia articles; some of them are about companies, many are about people and many other subjects. Please read the deletion notice I left on your talk page. It contains links to the best advice I and others have to offer. Wikipedia is not the place to promote any subject, including crypto companies. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please let me know about the WP:paid? how can i pay to wikipedia for publishing my company page? please give me a link if you have a video tutorial or any other helping material Olefinishad (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deepfriedokra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:AfC submission, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hi there, just wondered if I could get your thoughts on something. I'm now in training to be a SPI clerk. RoySmith informed me that those involved in SPIs can sometimes be targeted by angry users. He pointed out that I've volunteered a lot of personal info on my userpage, which could be used against me.
I've thought about revamping my userpage to excise a lot of personal data. But I wonder what the best way to do it is. Would it be more efficient to WP:TNT it... G7 speedy and recreate? Or make the changes and ask someone to revdel everything from the past? What do you think? --Drm310🍁 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I was the one who suggested RoySmith warn you about that. Hopefully it doesn't happen to you. :) Probably deleting the user page and restarting is the best way to start. --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to create a draft article for a video game called "Negative Atmosphere" when I noticed that it has been created before and deleted for advertising. With your permission I would like to recreate this article. I am not a paid editor and have no association with the company or anybody who is making this video game. I created a sandbox article that I believe (and hopefully) follows the Wikipedia guidelines for writing/creating articles. User:I edit things that come to mind/sandbox/Negative Atmosphere (video game)
If there is something wrong with my sandbox article or any changes/fixes that I should make please let me know.
@I edit things that come to mind: You do not need my permission so long as the article is not promotional and is suitably sourced. And as long as you bear more two things in mind.
I posted a comment at UTRS appeal #77679, but, because of an edit conflict, it arrived just after you closed the appeal, so you probably didn't see it. It's of no importance at all, but I thought you just might be interested in seeing what I said. JBW (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[8] and [9] were caused by the early formatting decisions I made when I somehow accidentally volunteered to clerk this discussion. I was making less work for others and am aware that I made more work for others by doing so. I fear that after ~10 years here, these types of blindly staggering about believing that I'm helping <Ralph Wiggum gif> things are a permanent feature rather than a bug, alas, alas. — Trey Maturin™17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
N1TH Music has asked me on Commons about reviewing their block as its been at least 6 months now. I have suggested to them about only creating articles on inherently notable places rather than things like places that might just be a house or 2. Are you willing to review their block probably with advice about what they should create, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: No. Banned as stated. They keep violating their block, and that keeps extending the time. And I'm afraid this using you to violate their block is grounds to reset the timer to six months from now. Please don't let them manipulate you this way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that asking about/appealing bans are normally exceptions so I don't see how that would fall under proxying, as opposed to asking me to make content edits for them. That said I'm not aware of their history with UTRS so if they have been asking too much then I can understand this but they haven't asked me for months. I don't want to get them into more trouble so if you want I can tell them not to ask for 6 months, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might lose power and internet some time Tuesday. Duke Energy has been trimming trees rigorously, but the track record is not good. TS force winds + trees + power lines = 😱 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stay safe! Looks like most of the weather models have it as a major hurricane, so you definitely want to be prepared and aware of Idalia. Looks to be impactful for the Big Bend area in Florida. Useful information for Idalia can be found here at the National Hurricane Center's website. TailsWx19:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:AfC submission, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. LizRead!Talk!05:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deepfriedokra,
What were you intending with this page? It was due to be deleted in a few hours under CSD G13. Any page in Draft space has to be actively edited or it becomes eligible for deletion, even if it is protected. You can recreate this, of course, but if you aren't editing this page, it will just go G13 in another 6 months.
I'm not sure if you saw, but both Draft:Ir. Indah Megahwati, MP and Draft:Indah Megahwati contain the address of the subject in the "life history" section. I'm not sure what the policy is for non-editors regarding addresses being revealed, but since it seems like an autobiography despite the confusion with two accounts, one bearing the subject's name, I guess she's technically an editor and it's a self-dox?
I won't nominate the pages for CSD since my U5 on one of them was already declined when it was still in the user space, but I would argue these are G11 now in the draftspace because they read more like a personal profile or resume with some puffery rather than a genuine article draft. Uhai (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, would you take a look at this IP user, @69.54.142.165. They have been adding strange always changing pov pushing edits all over the place. I think this might benefit from a temporary block. Almost every edit going back over a year has been reverted.
I see that in a recent talk page post you quoted from DGG. I was saddened to be reminded of him. I had a great respect for him, even though in a very large proportion, perhaps most, of the times I interacted with him we disagreed. At a fairly early stage of my time on Wikipedia he and I were both very active at AfD, and time and time again he was on the keep side, I on the delete side. When I became an administrator I moved on to other kinds of work, and rarely took part in AfDs, so I rarely saw DGG around. (I'm rather under the impression that he too became less often at AfD than before.) Nevertheless, I did encounter him from time to time, including sometimes in connection with deletions, and as time went on more and more often I found I was on the keep side and DGG on the delete side. I remember he said somewhere, perhaps on his user page, that over time he had shifted towards the deletionist end of the spectrum, whereas I have gone the other way. So we continued to mostly disagree, though in a very different way. I was slightly surprised that he supported me at RfA, despite how often we had disagreed. JBW (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean.. I'm glad he moved more to the deletionist side.... I saw him a lot at afc. Ironically he was tagging For g11 that did not meet my personal criteria. So the wheel really turned there for us as well.. Miss him. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. In view of the criticism I received last time, I wonder if I dare. However, this time there are only tens of them, not hundreds (or was it even thousands?) so it shouldn't be too difficult to check them all individually. JBW (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite what I said above I went ahead and deleted quite a lot of them. I did, however, check the editing history of each one individually, but I did not take the line, which many editors do, that any redirect which I personally consider potentially useful should be kept; the whole point of having a speedy deletion criterion for pages created by a block-evading editor is to convey to them the message that they will achieve nothing by evading their block, which is undermined if they find that much of what they do is in fact kept; I hold back from deleting only if there are more compelling reasons than "I like this one". JBW (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, come to think of it, in some cases where the redirect was created as a byproduct of a page move, I have moved the page back but kept a redirect from the other title if I have felt that it's a good redirect. I'm not sure why I tend to treat that case differently from when it's just a straight creation of a new redirect. JBW (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I saw, and I'm willing to bet he is already back at work or will be soon. His unrelenting compulsiveness demands it. Is that enough for you to use your magic glasses? Maybe in a week or two? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of ranges available to them, or I would have rangeblocked with account creation disabled. Hopefully they'll be noticeable enough that we can catch them before they hit the x-thousand edit mark next time.-- Ponyobons mots23:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! They've been on Wikipedia since 2005! That's longer than I have, and takes us way back to the days before Jezebel (Remember her?) and before [outing redacted] too. They must be truly obsessive. Incidentally, Ponyo, technically you are wrong, because OOODDD is the oldest account, though personally I don't think it matters. JBW (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DFO, every time I come here I think of putting in a section heading, because this is totally off topic for a section about DGG, but then I think "No, it's DeepFried's talk page, I'll leave it him to decide. If he wants it to be a total mess, that's up to him." JBW (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't standard vandalism though, it was an attack account named after the subject they were attacking. They should be shown the door, not welcomed and asked, if they don't mind too terribly, to possibly source their horrible comments. Admin responses run along a continuum of ←leniency to banhammer→, but (with the utmost respect I think you know I have for you) I think you really missed the mark with this one.-- Ponyobons mots22:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed over the years, Deep, that you very often post welcome messages to accounts that have started out with blatant vandalism, where most of us wouldn't have even considered doing so. Yes, it's certainly true that some vandalism-only accounts are a cover for a hidden inner constructive editor struggling to get out, and all credit to you for being more willing to give the benefit of the doubt than I would. This time, though, I'm with Bishonen and Ponyo: some things are just beyond benefit-of-the-doubt land. As for saying that you "stumbled looking for a user name block, and that shorted out [your] brain. Didn't think of NOTHERE", that ain't how I think. If I think someone needs blocking then I block them. I don't waste brain power trying to think of a standard block reason which fits. If there does happen to be a prefabricated block message that fits then I may use it, but if there isn't then I either write one for the nonce (sometimes a short and simple one, and sometimes, as I'm sure you know, quite long and detailed ones) or else, if I don't think the particular editor is worth the bother, I take the easy way out by just using {{Subst:uw-block}} or {{Subst:uw-block3}} without providing a "reason" parameter, which, as you no doubt know, defaults to the vague catchall reason "abuse of editing privileges". JBW (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have thought to fill in a blank generic block. "Impersonation and defamation." Trying to blame my mental slugginess on long covid, but I know better. I just thought of a great paper for Senior Seminar only twenty-five years too late. So mentally slow was a "pre existing condition." 😮💨 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm wondering if maybe I'm partly to blame for this mix-up? It was me who reported them to UAA (with the diff) as the name was the same as the article subject, but clearly wasn't making a constructive edit. It might have been better if I had reported them to AIV instead and used a summary that included the diff and pointed out the same name.
Sorry if I sent it to incorrect place and sorry if this caused confusion. I did see this talk page message yesterday but frankly, was a little worried that I caused the problem so I hid. I should have said something sooner. Knitsey (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You "thought of a great paper for Senior Seminar only twenty-five years too late"? At the age of eleven I was given a school homework to do which I finally got round to doing some time in my sixties. Absolutely literally true. JBW (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of non-standard block notices, years ago I got frustrated by the fact that all the standard ones give only the options of saying that the block is indefinite or telling the blocked editor that they are welcome to edit again when the block is over, but neither of those is appropriate in the case of an IP editor who would certainly be indef-blocked if they were editing from an account. So I invented the following notice, which I occasionally use:
As you no doubt expected, you have been blocked from editing again, for continuing the same kind of editing that led to your previous block. Naturally, this time the block is for a significantly longer period. JBW (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it applies only to an editor who has previously been blocked, and they will already have had a block message telling them how to request an unblock, usually still visible on the talk page, but I don't actively invite them to do so.
One of my favourite block notices is this one, though I very rarely use it, reserving it for people who I think really deserve a bit of mild sarcasm:
Having been told that you would be blocked from editing if you continued in the same way, you chose to be blocked. A strange decision, but it's your choice. If you have changed your mind and would like to start contributing to the encyclopaedia in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines after all, and if you think there are good reasons why unblocking you will benefit the project, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JBW (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you, but could this diff be revdel'd under R2 (the IP just got blocked, but I figured it would be good to revdel this edit as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little to no encyclopedic or project value). Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]15:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have received an email from an editor questioning a block I placed on what I described as a "vandalism-only account". The editor has raised two objections to my block: the edits may have been made in good faith, and there had been no edits since a level two templated warning. I have decided to seek opinions about the block from two independent administrators. Are you willing to look at the case, and say what you think of the block? The blocked account is Alexandre137. JBW (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By no stretch of the imagination are those good faith edits. They are BLP violations and could be revision deleted. They are clearly attacks. They merit a block before further disruption could have occurred. If the blocked user is prepared to address these edits and describe what constructive edits they might make, they can request unblocking on their talk page. ( l will copy edit when I'm back at a computer) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Would it be appropriate to revoke talk page access for User:King gidra? They made a personal attack on their talk page in reply to getting blocked (I've reverted it but it can be looked at in the page history). Thanks! --My Pants Metal (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This a WMF-banned user who has made threats against JW, so none of us can unblock them anyway. There is a staggering lack of self-awareness here. Acroterion(talk)01:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the histories, I was about to say "yes", when I found it was gone, and I was to disregard. Now I'm intrigued. JBW (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen that now. Both of us were guilty of initially jumping to conclusions without checking right the way back. Very strange, though. JBW (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking me, huh? Don't you mean you were frustrated to see the page already deleted when you went to do it? Bwahaha. (I'm laughing because I hardly ever manage to get in first with these jobs.) Bishonen | tålk09:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
HI, I am an renowned actor in punjabi film industry and I have submitted the required references for the required article I wrote as Amanmeet, but I didn't know you can't not allowed to write a personal article but I did. Can you please help me to retrieve this page and get it published for the public, so they can get an information regarding the actor. A wikipedia is a source of information which provides authentic and honest information. I want that information should reach the people. I have provide the required references so please help me out. AmanmeetSingh (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across some broken redirects that were the result of a rename that you did and I was wondering if the editor intended their new name to be (redact). It's just odd to see a "User:User X" type name. Just checking. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!18:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thanks. That's weird. I guess they phrased the request wrong and I did not see that. They wanted to vanish. No one will find them now. I did not redirect the old user pages as they wished to vanish, but you picked up their trail quick enough. What are the broken redirects?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion, I started a question at User_talk:𝔇𝔞𝔱𝔢_𝔞_𝔑𝔢𝔯𝔡#your_username, I think we should probably keep an eye on it, because due to the special character, there might be some issues with creating a page with this name, in case anyone were to try to create any subpage named after this user for any reason Andre🚐03:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: That might not be necessary after all. I look around and found my local newspaper ran an article on the station going silent. Currently I'm engaged in a rather tense discussion (my words) regarding the FCC source. The user is claiming it's a "primary source" and not "a reliable independent one". I'm trying to bring the temperature down a little. Anyway, with the addition of the newspaper source, I can toss the Facebook source. With that, can I readd the section, or would that be considered a revert? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the person you need to work it out with is the person you were/are in disagreement with. I just don't do content disputes. It's good you are working it out with them.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. We did work it out, I was just asking for guidance from you on if I could readd it now or if that would constitute a (manual) revert. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I had considered speedy deletion, but there didn't seem to be any criterion that fits. It probably is a hoax, but not such a blatant one as to justify speedy deletion. I suppose that one could say that in view of the editor's history as a whole it is obviously vandalism (and unlike many editors I see nothing in the speedy deletion criteria saying that we are bound to make decisions based only on the content of the page itself, and must not consider such background evidence). However, I am leaving it for someone else to decide, as I think I've had enough involvement with this editor. JBW (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Deepfriedokra, I've been monitoring that user for a while, and not gonna lie, I'm in absolute stitches as the user continues to misuse the talk page and turned it into some sort of stand-up comedy show. Don't you think that user has had enough already? 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 10:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very new to this and am not clear on which part of the article I created was deemed "advertising" which got it "speedily deleted" I also am very confused about references and read all the help section for it. So, I added references but am not sure if they are acceptable ones.
Please, I need help. I am just trying to get a page for Claudia Morales created as soon as I can. All instructions and guidelines are very convoluted and that makes it difficult to get an article to conform to them. Can you please personally help me get the page right?
@Noseallergy: Please don't feel like you need to hurry where new article creation is concerned. My first efforts were also deleted, and I was given far less guidance than you have received. Please read the deletion notice I left and follow all the links in it. It is information dense, and all that information will need to be read and reread for you to understand it all.
You sourced to what looks like her website, her instagram, some professional profile. Sources need to be independent of the subject, with verifiable information, and with a reputation for fact checking. Sourcing is sometimes the hardest part.
As to the promotionalism, that can be hard to unlearn. You can start by reading the linked information in the deletion notice. Article creation is breathtakingly difficult, so you might want to learn by editing and fixing existing articles first. Hope that helps. Oh, we do not have "pages" We have encyclopedia articles. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noseallergy, it was deleted because it was purely promotional--meaning, it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". So you need to start this from scratch: there was nothing worth saving, according to editors and (deleting) administrator. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I looked at the deleted version. I agree: this is not at all what an encyclopedic article should look like. Please read some actual encyclopedic articles, preferably decent ones, in order to get a better idea of what it is that we do. We don't do advertising. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a note on the UTRS ticket. Seems like they are making an effort to waste the time of as many editors as possible in a multithreaded fashion. I can't imagine doing much more besides correcting spelling mistakes with my phone! I just use the regular app for reading, which doesn't seem to be designed with "power usage" in mind. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deepfriedokra. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
For politeness to editors falling afoul of UAA or posting promotional drafts at AfC, and consistent efforts to discuss borderline cases with new users rather than the standard block-and-template.. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never given a barnstar before so no doubt am missing some useful syntax or feature. Anyway: as a fellow UAA janitor, have been impressed with your willingness to discuss the borderline cases, and to encourage name changes or COI declarations rather than the standard block/delete/forget that some (including me) too frequently do. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enquiries for the deletion of the Prive WM article
May I ask for the reasons why my article is removed. My main purpose is to introduce our company but not to do advertisement. Should I modify my words or neutralise it to be approved ? Jacky Prive (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacky Prive: "Introducing" your company is a form of promotion. Please see the deletion notice I left on your talk page. Please follow all of the links. The notice is information dense and links to important information to help you edit non promotionally. Please see the notice Yamla left about conflict of interest, Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have been blocked from edict wiki and even my own talk page. Today, 4 December is completed one month.
Even Muzzzmuzzmuzzz, that requested my blocking, after doing a PROVEN WRONG edict that I have corrected, asked for my block for a period of just one month.
I have done a appeal without having a response.
This is not fair.
Dirceu Mag 62.252.217.197 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. I'm afraid, what @Muzzzmuzzmuzzz: wants is not germane. You have had responses to your unblock requests, and still have not addressed the reasons for your block adequately. I'm afraid that evading your block is not going to help you. Waves at @Bbb23: and ducks. (It's for you. 😋) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I tried to add an article on a very respectable doctor in the breast cancer space to build awareness of breast cancer and early detection to reduce mortality rates of the condition. I understand it was tagged for "speedy deletion" but I'm happy to re-write. He has over 65 research papers published in well recognised peer reviews journals. How can I add his profile to Wikipedia?
@Alex-s-kay: Thanks for your note. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it does not have profiles. I has encyclopedia articles. The problem with "profiles" is they are inherently promotional, and that was the reason it was tagged for deletion. Until you have learned to write in an encyclopedic rather than promotional manner, you might not be able to write about this subject objectively. You might want to gain experience in encyclopedia writing before editing in an area related to a conflict of interest. Please follow the links in the deletion notice I left to better understand how to edit non promotionally. As it sits, it reads like you are selling him and his services. Each statement needs to be sourced as I wrote in the deletion notice. Hope this helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I have no information about the actual appeal. Equally obviously I trust your judgement over this. I suppose I just wanted to express my surprise that the editor I believed was earnest and naïve has turned out to be sockpuppetry. I think I am expressing this to myself, really, after investing a fair amount of time in answering their presumed naïve questions.
I think what crystallised my thinking over this is the fact of a UTRS appeal in addition to an unblock request notice. That drove a coach and horses through the 'earnest and naïve' thoughts that I had previously, on the basis that it required more careful attention to the block that most non-sock editors would trouble with.
@Timtrent: Never feel bad about assuming good faith and helping people. We never know if the other user is truly in earnest or is cleverly deceptive. I can't do SPI cause I tend to believe protestations of innocence. I want to believe this user, but the behavioral evidence needs careful consideration. The upshot is their avenue of appeal is to email ArbCom/the checkusers as no ordinary admin can/may unblock them.
People sock-blocked seeking unblock desperately and disbelievingly place their unblock requests on their talk pages. They aren't answered right away and become more desperate and disbelieving and post to UTRS. It's sad for them and for the reviewers. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All we can do is to sigh. The ArbCom appeal outcome will doubtless not be publicly available but will reach an additional conclusion.
I am never put off from AGF. I am simply disappointed every time I am proved to have been mistaken. This one appeared genuine in many ways, obviously except the fundamental ones tat I am not privy to. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may be. They appear to be speaking from the heart, but that and sockpuppetry are not mutually exclusive. Time will tell. They have picked some difficult articles to work on, and seem to have attracted a very diligent opponent. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an admin who's around? I don't want to make an ANI and go to all that fuss, but would you mind taking a look at Chicago Torture Justice Center, I've nominated it for AfD because it's been moved around so much between user sandbox, draft-space and several main pages that I don't know if it's eligible for anything else, but I am wondering if it ought to be speedy-deleted as it's basically an attack page not only on Chicago police, but on one particular named guy. It's basically unsourced because it has only general references (which don't look bias-free to me, but I'm not an expert on the area). I am concerned also that its creator might be here to right great wrongs, and will land up at ANI sooner or later if they don't start taking advice. Many thanks! Elemimele (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deepfriedokra. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello DFokra
I submitted the following unblock request.
Could you take a look.
My concern is Wikipedia oversight is not fit for purpose and my privacy is not respected.
I was blocked for trying to remove my name from the article Oliver Emanuel, starting an edit war. Oversight would not comply even after my name was removed from the source articles in The Scotsman, and The Guardian. I was eventually successful after the ICO decided in my favor and contacted wikimedia legal, but my name was re-added, leading to more socking. The edit history was also eventually rev-deleted for copyvio.
Unfortunately I am now banned from editing wikipedia as I discovered when Irecently tried my admittedly amateur hand at creating the articles Grae Cleugh, and Playwrights' Studio Scotland.
I am concerned that I cannot prevent my name being added in the future if I am blocked.
I emailed ca@wikimedia.org from my private email which is also in the body of the above unblock request. (oversight requested... I shouldn't have to ask). Please contact me on that email.
I am requesting my personal information (including my name) removed from wikimedia servers and cannot access any of my accounts or socks, which also needs resolved.
I understand abuse of unblock will not be tolerated and only require it for legitimate purposes.
The blocking admin user:GeneralNotability, and "user:Primefac" were not entirely unhelpful, but for reasons unknown, mostly unable to help with my request leading to my block and socking.
I look forward to your response.
I am also requesting escalation to admin privileges, or block exemption but do not expect any movement in that area.
(Non-administrator comment): Anon, I'm fairly certain admitting to sockpuppetry and block evasion will not help your case. I would recommend removing that hash to start (you aren't supposed to share those, especially on Wiki) and wait on a response from UTRS. It is 5am Eastern, so most folks are still asleep, give it time. Beyond that, requesting an unblock from your original account is the best course of action. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was closed at 02:47:29 UTC, so it was dealt with. We don't need the hash to see a ticket, just the username. Sorry that whole affair must have been an ordeal.
As the ticket indicates user had been through a legal process to remove their name, that's the route to follow. The handling admin declined the ticket as not addressing the block. In fact, it was pretty hard to follow and inconsistent. No reason, however understandable, justifies the socking. Shoulda done it the right way w/o socking. In fact, wanting unblock in part to once again take up that sword is not reassuring. @Primefac: if you could fill me in privately as to make some sense of all this. While you are at it, you might want to OS UTRS appeal #82415. I'll go back now and remove that ticket hash. No one concerned with their privacy should post them on Wikipedia. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just saw the post pop up on my Watchlist, read it and went "yeah, this ain't right". I did message Primefac (as they had edited within the hour this took place), but apparently they had gone to bed. To be fair, it was 5a EST, so that was understandable. I thought I would, at least, give the user some advice, which was about all I could do. :) I figured with some daylight, it would all get worked out...and it did. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely appreciate all of your efforts to assist me in getting unbanned, including helping out at UTRS, consulting with the blocking admin, and bringing my appeal to the admin's noticeboard. I sincerely appreciate it, and I assure you that you won't regret it. I'll go slowly, and in a few months I'll start writing articles. Thank you so much; please get in touch with me if you ever need anything. 20 upper (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Deepfriedokra, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing,
🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 03:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DFO's rule of thumb One promotional edit indicates a lack of understanding of our WP:SPAM polices. Two promotional edits indicate ignoring/not understanding spam warning. Three promotional edits indicate intentional use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. (And adding spam to multiple Wikipedias in a foreign language is way over the top.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A user reached out via my talk page regarding this image and requested assistance. It looks like a cut and dry case of "just needs an FUR", but I saw the VRTS/OTRS link at the bottom. Can you tell me if an FUR will solve this or if there is something else going on? Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no. I do often delete copyvios but normally only when someone else points them out! (I do check first, of course.) Deb (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, i am currently making a page under the name "Deolin Naidoo" it says that it was deleted and if the article is similar please contact the person who performed actions. This message is regarding the contents of the previous article I am not sure if my contents matches with the existing article or not. I am not affiliated with the previous publisher of that article. I got some questions; Q1: if my article matches with the content of the previous article article what will happen? Q2: if my contents are totally different will my wiki page be approved under an name that was deleted? ILikeFried&Chips (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what specific case you're discussing, but I noticed some time ago a user may appear as if they never edited, after all (or almost all) their contributions have been deleted. Have a sunny day! --CiaPan (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Done With pleasure.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Deepfriedokra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:AfC submission, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
