User talk:Graham87/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

You've got mail

Hello, Graham87. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Lord Julyan of Srp and Mr kindheart

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is a continuing problem with both these users. After your final warning on January 3, Lord julyan of Srp made another unreferenced edit on January 27, at Vipoig, once more inserting the new material before existing references that do not support it, and with no edit summary. HLHJ reverted him on February 4 with an edit summary stating that the point does not appear to be in the references. I would suggest that an indefinite block is required to get this very occasional editor to add sources. But their friend Mr kindheart has also continued to make problematic edits. This edit on January 19 to Huang Guigu has the edit summary "please tell me if i did it right this time" and a malformed reference to Wikia (in curly brackets below the references section); HLHJ's edit summary reverting the text indicates there was also copyvio from Wikia. This edit on January 24 to Regin, marked "minor", is completely unsourced. This edit on January 25 to Mkabayi kaJama copied text from a blog source that Mr kindheart cited in the edit summary as well as in a reference that attempted to use a citation template. The edit was reverted by PJvanMill, who has also been trying to advise Mr kindheart; HLHJ subsequently found an academic paper that the blog had copied from, and used it to improve the article. Mr kindheart has apparently had edits revision-deleted for copyvio in the past. HLHJ informed them on January 25 that they had received a final warning, linking to your warning at User talk:Lord julyan of Srp; Mr kindheart then began the Wikipedia Adventure as they had been advised to do, particularly by HLHJ, but on February 3 made this edit to Lhalung Pelgyi Dorje with the edit summmary "heard more to the story and felt the need to add it to his short entry", and the source as a bare link following two other external links. Most of the text added is copied from the source; the last part, about jumping off a cliff, is not in the source. I am about to add a little from the source to the article and otherwise revert the edit. This is also continued problematic editing; since they say they are friends, and since Mr kindheart, while showing more effort at trying to reference their additions, is continuing to copy and paste text, I suggest they should be dealt with together, possibly by indefinitely blocking both from article space? Otherwise, I commend HLHJ in particular for their patience and effort, but badly written, unreferenced or misleadingly referenced, and in some instances copyright-violating text is continuing to get into the encyclopedia. (At Mkabayi kaJama the next edit removed the reference, not the text!) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you at Lhalung Pelgyi Dorje and decided to go ahead with my edit with a modified edit summary, in order to note the copyvio and the unsourced bit, and because the article is almost entirely unsourced (and those external links don't look promising; a "brief mention" and something on Vimeo about black magicians ... I'll now bow out. Sorry again to dump this on you. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Oops, sorry about that. Thanks for the note; I've indefblocked both users. I blocked them fully; they can still edit their user talk pages. I'm not usually the biggest fan of partial blocks, but your mention of them reminded me of a situation where I *have* used them on an IP range and I found more promotional editing on that range. In that case I think I'll hold off blocking unless the spamming continues. Graham87 10:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

History merge needed

Hi Graham87, messaging you as you seem to be the person on my watchlist who fixes history problems. There is an issue with History of the Philippines (1565–1898), which appears to have been moved to the title Spanish Colonisation of the Philippines (now a redirect), and then cut and pasted back to the original title. Happily, I think it should be a simple merge as far as they go, with there being no edits on what is now the redirect (but was the original page) since the cut and paste move except bots. Per your talkpage request, a note that I'm watching this page although I don't mind a reply on my page if that is easier. Best, CMD (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I'm on it. Might take a little while due to problems with MediaWiki. If you have this page on your watchlist you might find that my history merge adds lots of entries to it. Graham87 14:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

How ominous! CMD (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Lollollol all done now. Graham87 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. CMD (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia records

I noticed you reverted my entries. The two entries above are also of "personal experience," but can be verified. My entries can be verified also, by the information I gave. They are not made up facts, but verifiable facts - example is the 34 Good Articles I made in the month of October. 2020. Look at my User Page history and you can count the top green icons I added for the month of October. AND you verify when those were given to me as earned Good Articles. User:John M Wolfson seems to be the top editor for this article and I asked him first before I entered those if it would be proper. He replied Sure, just put it in the "Articles" section. So, it wasn't something I added without seeing if it was proper first. Could I reenter those, as I feel they are legitimate. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think the records are fine, just don't mention yourself in them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell and John M Wolfson: I was considering putting them back without the personal comments, but then I realised how ... nebulous and oddly specific they are. It's verifiable that you made those achievements but it's not verifiable anywhere on Wikipedia that they're records, unlike the two records above them, which have relevant tracked statistics. I'm especially sceptical about the DYK records ... Wikipedia's Did You Know process was much much more relaxed in the past than it is now. Re the good article record, a month is an incredibly specific (and variable) length of time. Graham87 14:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I still think the DYK records are appropriate (similar to the "most edits to an article in 24 hours" record for the London bombings which was due to IP edits being more prominent "back in the day") and verifiable (just add the "unconfirmed" tag to them if felt appropriate), although I agree the "month" part is sketchy (an actual calendar month, or an arbitrary 30-day division?). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Maybe it's just that I'm not the biggest fan of article recognition processes in general, especially DYK ... but the records still feel ... odd to me and very much extreme inside baseball. The London bombings record is far more relateable to many people, especially those who were around when they occurred. It might never happen in quite the same way again but it's still quite an achievement. Graham87 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the Benjamin Loxley record of quickest made Did You Know put on the main page is easily verifiable and I don't see any difference in today's procedures of putting articles on the main page then, than it is today. I'm a most familiar with this as I have done over 500 Did You Know articles. Concerning the Frederick Langenheim article, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's Did You Know process being much more relaxed in the past. The process is the same then as it is today and my familiarity with creating 500 Did You Know articles proves this. It so happens that in my 15 years of editing that 97% of all the articles I created became Did You Know articles. Are you familiar with the process back then when I did my records and the Did You Know process of today? How? I would like to put my records back in place where I entered them. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude records that are verifiable, general, and non-arbitrary, which I think the DYK records are. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell and John M Wolfson: The Benjamin Loxley record is not easily verifiable, unless you are willing to go through the histories of all the did you know subpages and nominated articles to check them ... plus Template talk:Did you know where nominations used to be made until mid-2011, along with the template itself. I'm a perennial Lurker and I notice discussions all around the place ... I remember the 2011 reform proposals well, for example. I used to read the Main Page religiously until 2012 but stopped reading DYK long before then because I didn't find it that interesting. Doug, your eagerness to add records of this nature, which are quite arbitrary and were allegedly made by you, does not do much to improve the reputation of DYK in my mind. Graham87 15:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair in that regard, many records we currently have ("Longest time between article creation and talkpage creation", "Article with most editors", "Most archives", etc.) are verifiable in theory but would be a pain to systematically confirm in practice, which is why we occasionally have to update them as new information is found and include the "Unconfirmed" tag. Doug's DYK records seem to fit that bill, and 2 days is quite rapid, so there's no reason in my mind why we can't have a "Shortest time from article creation to appearance on the Main Page" for each section (excluding pre-2004 entries, presumably), even if we have to have a "fill in if found" on many of them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: OK, you can feel free to re-add them without the personalisation. I don't feel particularly moved to do it but you can if you like. Graham87 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hermann Jaeger

Hello Graham

please go to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_Pestalozzi

There you'll find:

Mit elf Jahren wurde Jakobli, der immer noch nicht richtig schreiben und lesen konnte, zu Freunden nach Basel gebracht. Wenig später brachen bei ihm epileptische Anfälle aus. Nach seiner Rückkehr auf Gut Neuhof heiratete er Anna Magdalena Fröhlich aus Brugg, ein Patenkind seiner Mutter Anna. Sie bekamen 1798 einen Sohn, Gottlieb. Hans-Jakobs Anfälle wurden immer schlimmer und häufiger. Am 15. August 1801 starb Pestalozzis Sohn 31-jährig. Anna Magdalena Fröhlich heiratete in zweiter Ehe Laurenz Jakob Custer (1765–1822). Ihr Enkel ist der nach Amerika ausgewanderte Rebenzüchter und Winzer Hermann Jaeger.

None of this whole article is from me as you easily find in its history; so it has absolutely nothing to do with obscure ancestry.

As a matter of fact it is this article, which made me check in our MyHertage-page, made up by a 1st. grade Jaeger-cousin. Before an other cousin with his great-grandmother Jaeger being the only sister of Hermann in question told me to be related with Pestalozzi by this great-grandother. So I found him to be wrong and the English Version of the Wikipedia article to be wrong as well.

Other places to look for, an article for Hans Jakob Pestalozzi, the educators son:

https://www.heinrich-pestalozzi.de/biographie/neuhofjahre/pestalozzis-sohn-hans-jacob/

just at the end you'll find:

Jaqueli wurde dann in eine Ausbildung nach Mülhouse und 1785 in eine kaufmännische Lehre bei der Familie Battier in Basel gegeben, wonach er auf den Neuhof zurückkehrte. 1791 wurde er mit Anna Magdalena, geb. Frölich, vermählt. Bereits 10 Jahre später verstarb er und hielt durch seinen Sohn Gottlieb noch für eine Zeit die Ahnenreihe der Pestalozzi aufrecht. Gottliebs Sohn Karl, Pestalozzis Urenkel, blieb unverheiratet und kinderlos, womit Pestalozzis Linie ausgestorben ist.

Please be so kind and edit the Hermann article such, that the fake relation with Pestalozzi is corrected and the the references are in there. I am brand new here and do not know yet how to do references.

In this sense I'll be glad for your help.

Hans Jaeger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaegerhans (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

by the way, into the German Hermann Jaeger page I've uploaded pictures from his French medal and certificate he got for his work. I could not make it to upload into the English version. I'd be glad if you could/would do it for me.

Hans Jaeger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaegerhans (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Graham,

First: Thanks a lot.

For the references: Only one was the Wikipedia article, the other source for you to "look" into is absolute independent. It just shows what we find here where the whole Pestalozzi story took place.

As mentioned before the "governmental data" are not online (yet) and with the current corona situation it might take long till I can go "back home" to Brugg to do a personal verification such that I could use it as reference.

Since Hermann Jaeger is not related with Pestalozzi it would be most convenient to just skip that part; if not for that false remark in the biography given as reference.

For the pictures in the German page all is o.k.; this was not my question. I just did not find the means to use them also in the English version.

Hans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaegerhans (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank You over here too!

	It’s a maze of twisty passages all around here. Sometimes, it’s hard to feel appreciated, and you deserve some love! This Heart-shaped Labyrinth is to say Thank YOU for all your hard work. I appreciate you being here - I really do - and so do these peeps!
	You can also share some wikiKind wikiLove by adding {{subst:Heart Labyrinth}} to any talk page with your own message.

with love always, DrMel (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Got help making this into a template but it doesn’t work as a template on meta talk pages so here’s a new one here, with a link to the first set of video clips from our wikipedia day zoom. My 11 year old student intern is taking video production - but we haven’t gotten through the whole 3 hours yet so enjoy whats here so far!

Know anyone you’d like to share the wikilove with? I’d be delighted to see it spread!

Love for Sale FAC

Hi. Found your name on my watchlist (Winter in America) and want to ask if you can comment on or review my FAC, Love for Sale (Bilal album). It has been stale for a few weeks, and there are ambiguous or reluctant takes on the sourcing in the article that could use further discussion. Anyway, you seem a very experienced and solid editor, so just thought to ask randomly. The criteria for featured articles is WP:FA?, if you choose to do so. Thanks. All the best. isento (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Graham87 08:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem with Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music, and perhaps you can help. The initial entry says that it is a merge from two sources, the section in the composer's article, and Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence. I don't care about the composer (short section), but the other, an enormous amount of prose, images and refs. Is there any way to do a history merge which would show the original author's contribution? (Everybody to whom I showed it so far reacted: only one user, where's the problem. It's not fair.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Nope, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about this one. The attribution is technically correct, even though the whole thing is morally dubious. That's all I'll say on this matter. Graham87 16:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"dubious" is a fine wording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

2804:7F5:9486:D4FA:0:0:0:0/64

Can user:2804:7F5:9486:D4FA:0:0:0:0/64 please be blocked for vandalism? CLCStudent (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: Done. Graham87 16:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1008089460/next

Hello, what's the point? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer: Oh, there is none now ... because they're merged. I've self-reverted. Talkarchive was generally the standard on talk-namespace pages. Graham87 16:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For finding and fixing the problem with the WP:RM page. Simple when you know how! Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Thanks very much! Graham87 07:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom Jones

You said, "Sentence case for titles" in citations. That's news to me. I looked for the MoS that says that. The only thing I found was: "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article. For example, replace the headline or title "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today" or, if necessary, "War begins today"." So I guess it depends on the consensus of the article. Musdan77 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Manorialism

Hi, I noticed an anonymous IP made a change to Manorialism that you reverted. Thanks for that. Looking at the article, I think we should declare which variant of English the article should be written in and I argue that it should be British Eng. and have started a section in the talk page to that effect. I just thought that you might want to contribute to that discussion seeing as you reverted back. Thanks! Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

More stuff reverted

I'm not sure what happened at Birthday or how I reverted any edits at all. I thought I was just reinstating the file. My apologies! PseudoSkull (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Tuskegee Airmen edit

Graham! Thanks for letting me know that you reverted my edit. I understand (though maybe not fully agree with?) the point that the former phrase was "more neutral." I think it's a semantics and not worth my climbing any hill. I do think something like the Tuskegee Experiments maybe shouldn't be talked about neutrally, for fear that it tacitly affirms the truly 100% terrible things done to African-American men and women. But that's all probably best left to a blog, and not a Wikipedia entry. Cheers! -- Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbevel1972 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation

I think your help is needed here: more activity spent in talk than in making the article better. See history Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation. Many thanks for your time. --Anneyh (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding mass reversions

Hello! I've noticed that you've been in the process of removing about one thousand edits that come from a now-blocked Australian IP range (2001:8003:59db:4100::/64). It looks like you've been pointing to the range's edits as those of an "extreme right-wing" editor. Some of the edits that have been reverted (at least the ones that I have encountered) seem to have been removed because they were made by an IP from the blocked range, on that basis, even though they were fine edits. The one that comes most to mind is this one, where an individual from that IP range added a fine citation to an article on the Xinjiang internment camps. I understand that you're concerned regarding the editor's history of POV pushing, though I am concerned that there may be more good edits that have been reverted simply because they were made by an IP in the blocked range. I haven't looked through your edit history to check and identify if this is more common, though I just wanted to alert you to my concern moving forward as you continue to look over the range's edits and remove POVPUSHing and vandal edits. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Yeah ... adding a ref with no additional text is often considered ref-bombing. In that particular case Tablet seems OK (I thought so at the time and don't mind the reintroduction of the source) but almost all of their other refs are to things like the Daily Wire, the Mises Institute, etc. ... in places where they don't belong at all. I also learnt while going through their edits that there's a thing called WallBuilders. Some of their edits I'm keeping/improving on, but most range from being useless to actively harmful. All the edits by a /64 range would be made by the same person, or at least on the same computer network. Graham87 03:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also re the Robin DiAngelo edit ... I'm OK with the reversion of my edit, which I originally saw as part of a pattern of removing progressive content. The lihnk was originally added in April 2017, when the article was much less developed than it is now. Graham87 04:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Eblackadder3 block evasion

I am curious about three blocks you made on the same day a year-and-a-half ago, specifying block evasion as the reason. You did not name the master in your summary, but in the course of tracing a new sockpuppet I am seeing behavioral evidence that the master was Eblackadder3. The blocked socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eblackadder3. Feel free to express your thoughts at the SPI case page, if you wish. Thanks for your energetic vigilance. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks for the note; I replied there. Graham87 06:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

The image shows many little daisies, with thanks for what you said for RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Oper am Brühl (Leipzig): I don't think it needs that "Leipzig" dab, - seems to be the only one. Can you move it to Oper am Brühl? - It's just Royal Opera House, not Royal Opera House (London). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Done. Graham87 02:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesu, meine Freude

wild garlic

Thank you for taking care early - from 2007 - of an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) - The image - my calendar image for April - shows the white flowers of wild garlic in abundance as far as one can see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No worries ... wow that's really cool! Graham87 01:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you see that it helped not only against death and fear, but also arbcom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I didn't before, but now I have! Graham87 08:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the poet took the image from Luther saying "Ich stehe hier. Ich kann nicht anders." (pictured in stone), and I wish RexxS could have just done the same. - Can you perhaps help me with some technicality? I began a peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227/archive1, and it is in the list, but not on the talk page. I stopped when I had created it, and now don't know what exactly I missed on the talk, substitute or what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind the latter, I found it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oh yes re first part of message! Re latter part: I was going to say that I couldn't find anything wrong ... I did a purge on the talk page, which often fixes things like this. Graham87 08:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

More memories on the Main page today, Psalm 115 thinking of Yoninah, Christa Ludwig and Milva, - voices that made the Earth a better place. Sad that the psalm hook didn't appear on Earth Day as planned, but better pictured and late than going unnoticed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the template advice

I'm pretty new with the whole template thing, and really the only citation template I know is the cite-web one, so I'll strive to use web-archive in the future. Looks like the syntax is roughly the same. Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Syd770

Hi!

You blocked this user saying that they're obviously a sockpuppet. As you've removed TPA they've now come to UTRS saying that they haven't socked. May I ask who you suspect them of being a sockpuppet of? Would you mind if I restored TPA for them to make an appeal?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I don't have a particular user in mind but there's always been weirdness with Jewish categories/lists. You can re-enable talk page access if you really think that'd be helpful ... but honestly I see no good reason for their monomaniacal editing pattern. Graham87 04:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Having read their two block appeals (now that UTRS is working again), I've accepted their latest one (see their talk page) so there's nothing more for you to do here. Graham87 06:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thanks, Graham87 for your infusion of civility into the discussion. Appreciated! It's the kind of thing sorely lacking as of late, especially from some of the old-timers that should know better. It's what Wikipedia needs more of these days. GenQuest "scribble" 20:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@GenQuest: Thanks, I assume you're referring to this? Your edit summary confused me quite a bit at first, because I thought you were referring to the other meaning of BS, lol! Graham87 01:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That's it. Some people just don't like to play nicely. Thanks again! GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alfredokudai1

While Alfredokudai1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has certainly been disruptive, I'm not convinced they are linked to the other accounts, in particular the IP 2A0D:5600:63:0:0:0:1:800B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as it appears to be a few thousands miles away from their known IP 190.163.166.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I think the first IP's unblock requests are a misleading attempt to implicate other editors, unless there's something I'm missing? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Oops, I just noticed they were both North/South American IP's and didn't dig any further ... you're right. I've left the blocks in place though; their Spanish Wikipedia block log doesn't help their case. Graham87 09:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A block for disruption works for me, they are definitely guilty of that. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help renaming/moving an article

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and just wanted to translate our artist Johannes Fleischmann's German Wikipedia article into English and create the English page for it. I found the import function, which is what I did and followed the instructions of a tutorial on YT how to properly do this. Now, I have the problem that I cannot rename the article, the option for "moving the page" just doesn't appear where it should. Now I read that I have to be registered for at least four days to be able to rename/move articles and for the English Wiki need to have made at least 10 edits, or edit 10 articles or whatever, which I haven't done yet and won't do any time soon, because I'm just concerned with our own artists we represent at our artist agency. Now, could you please explain to me or help me to change this articles title: "User:S&J-mdusoffice/JohannesFleischmannEnglish" to simply "Johannes Fleischmann" and link it to the German version of that article. Thank you in advance! S&J-mdusoffice (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)