Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 14:51, 23 January 2025

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Mail

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year, Drmies! In 2024, other editors thanked you 1093 times using the thanks tool on the English Misplaced Pages. This made you the #11 most thanked Wikipedian in 2024. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Misplaced Pages. Here's to 2025! Mz7 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Haha thanks, Mz7--and I just hit you with a +2! Drmies (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Bbb23, happy new year, and how is it that you are thanked more than me??? I thought I was the good cop! Drmies (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • It's a conspiratorial ploy by the perps to cozy up to the bad cop.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Shoot I just thanked User:Gerda Arendt for an edit, and she was already ahead of me. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

• As explained on my talk, I hope I do more real thank-you than lazy click-thanks ;) - Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• ... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Advice needed

How can I convince user:Sky258 that, per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, airport connections need independent sources? Nearly all his/her additions are unsourced and reverted. Warnings did not help but blocking seems over the top. Do you have any ideas? The Banner talk 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hmm I disagree: they were warned by multiple editors, and the content is unsourced. I was going to ask about talk page consensus, but there is project-wide consensus... Drmies (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Okay. The Banner talk 23:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the learning curve after the prior block is best described as flatliner... The Banner talk 02:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Hmm Banner I jumped on that too quickly: it was not a complete flatline, and I left the editor a note, which one might call a final warning. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I disagree: unsourced addition 1 (Nha Trang) and unsourced addition 2 (Chendu). The Banner talk 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on B. J. Hollars

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page B. J. Hollars, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on B. J. Hollars

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page B. J. Hollars, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Pinzunski/User:SukunaZenin

Returned to Francisco Trincão AGAIN, with that nonsensical ref about a BENFICA match for a SPORTING championship win (reverted it on the spot)! I guess the rest can stay (should you see that the sources are appropriate, if not remove it), will duly compose it (i.e. Style of play section) when i get home.

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Misplaced Pages Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

• Les Jours and East View Press join the library
• Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Banned cease-and-desist photographer

I am really frazzled now. Someone is reverting edits by a user claimed to be a "Banned cease-and-desist photographer". I can not find any trace of that. You should expect some traces of that on ENWP, Meta or Commons, but no.

Do you (or your stalkers) know anything about this? It sounds a bit fishy to me right now. The Banner talk 14:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• No clue. I'll add to your note. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, seeing the edits of this account, the editor did this wiki-wide. The Banner talk 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(stalker comment) I don't really have anything conclusive to add, but from what I see, the user who uploaded the images is not banned or even warned from either enwiki or Commons. He appears to be a professional photographer who uploads many of his images to commons, and then Misplaced Pages, replacing lower-quality existing ones if necessary (I guess there is a small chance its all a big copyright misuse but you'd have thought that would have been picked up upon, particularly as his work involves famous buildings and peopel so probably gets a lot of views). You can see on his talk page there is a message from an IP user in 2019 (who stopped editing in the same year) regarding 'excessive use of own images'. I'm unsure if any such rule actually exists, but in my opinion it was not applicable anyway as the use of the images improved the site, were not self-promotional in terms of including watermarks or anything to overtly identify the contributor, and was not excessive proliferation of photos within individual articles. The reverting user has only made 92 edits, half of which were reverting the photographer today. Not sure why they would even take this course of action, expect perhaps they noticed an image (one of their own?) replaced by the photographer editor, read their talk page, decided the 2019 message was something official and unilaterally decided it justified reverting all recent additions (in the same style as the 2019 user, which is suspicious too). Crowsus (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Crowsus, thank you for doing some of that leg work--I had looked at various things but managed to miss that IP comment. And that IP comment: well, "excessive" use is a thing frowned upon but you laid out the (common sense) practices pretty neatly; thank you for that as well. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

{{tps}} That photographer's license terms seem to take a strict position on the exact way credit must be given in off-wiki uses of their work. I'm not sure if they have pursued settlements against good-faith reusers or in other ways headed into license-trolling. I, like others, cannot find discussion about it on enwiki or commons.There was a previous case (long ago, different license-holder) where consensus formed that the effect of mass use of a certain creator's content on-wiki was to induce innocent/good-faith but not "strictly by the not-quite-expected license terms" use off-wiki, enabling forced legal settlements. There was thought that the creator themself was actually intentional about using wiki in this way, and that all of this exceeded the community's tolerance and good-faith. DMacks (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

DMacks, yes, thanks--I remember a case too and I think it played out on Commons, that guy who posted videos of himself ejaculating and stuff, and there was a guy who sucked his own ****. But more to the point, I also remember a case of a photographer who, it was judged, was basically here to promote their own business and I think an ANI post led to removal of some of those images. But I can't see what practical guidelines User:Arne Müseler is supposed to have broken. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is off-wiki evidence of actual legal actions against re-users, or claims that WP sites are inducement. But I also assume anything I'd find by googling I couldn't mention here for OUTING anyway. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, and any kind of case should be either discussed on-wiki or submitted privately if there's some privacy concern, rather than signaled (if that's even the word) with a boilerplate and vague edit summary. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User:The Banner, I have reverted those edits. Thanks for bringing it up. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your welcome. I hope the editor just made a mistake. The Banner talk 02:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

For every one who's interested, please see User talk:RAL1028. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify posts on Miijumaaru talk page

The conversation I pinged you in at Annoyed at rule changes was a continuation of the post right above at Please do not use template main in the lead. The editor broke it into two parts for some reason and I wasn't about to correct the nesting issue since the conversation turned turbulent. Since they did multiple changes to articles I thought it would be good to let them know that {{main}} is never used in the lead per the template itself. This was made aware to Tennis Project awhile back and several of us have been slowly fixing tennis articles to comply. A daunting task. I hope this helps you understand the situation I encountered. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

On a side note to above template talk

While template "main" should not be used in the lead, the template "further" is less clear on placement. I just looked and the template "see also" also says not to use in the lead and is used only at the top of sections. "Further" says nothing about placement and I can't help but wonder if that should also say not to use in the lead. Where best to bring that up? On the narrow Template:Further talk page? Or is there a more general template talk page that it should be talked about? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• That's a good question, and I don't have an answer for that--but I think Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout is the first place I would go to. I don't know that that page gets a lot of traffic, though... But if, as you say, there is a consensus for the other one, you might could ping some of the editors who discussed that. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I posted at Manual of Style/Layout first to see if anyone knows the answer. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

AfD sock

There's something seriously wrong with OhNoKaren. The account is about a week old, and she's already created many AfDs. That's pretty much all she's done. I vaguely remember some deletion socks, although I don't recall that they had problems with the procedure as she does. Even if she's not a sock, I'm thinking her editing is disruptive enough to block, but I have to go eat dinner. Can you check if you're still around?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Well, we did just block an AfD troll, a few weeks ago, but this one has a clean record, from my perspective. I need coffee, BTW. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Later, after logging out, it occurred to me that the new user's name is similar to Ohnoitsjamie, not similar enough to block for impersonation, but I wondered if the user's conduct rings any bells, Jamie?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a "sour grapes" account, someone upset that their vanity bio/company page was deleted? Not sure what the specific case would be. I suspect a sock check would turn up multiple accounts. OhNoitsJamie 15:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Sorry to disappoint you. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • See analysis on User talk:OhNoKaren - she did nominate multiple vanity bio/company pages, and I think those will actually get deleted. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
        • If many of the nominations have merit, it makes her less disruptive, but not less suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • CU would probably be stale, but User:Light2021 comes to mind; after I deleted a page they created, they became very active in AfD; some of the noms were good, but many were not and they were eventually blocked, unblocked, then reblocked for violating terms of their unblock. OhNoitsJamie 17:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
        • HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU REMEMBER STUFF LIKE THAT Drmies (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
          • That's a great question; there's plenty of more useful stuff I wish that I remembered. OhNoitsJamie 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
            • The two users don't write at all the same. Light2021 doesn't sound like a native English speaker. Drmies, was a check ever run against Light2021? Looks like they were accused of socking (their block log is, um, busy)?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
              • Yep--by User:jpgordon and, to stay on the topic of memory, by you. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
              • It's documented here, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive, and Jpgordon checked after an unblock request in 2018. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
                • Ha! If you remember, my memory is almost non-existent, and as far as CU-related stuff, I repress all of it as bad memories. That said, I suspect that if you were to check the CU log of Light2021 vs. the data on Karen, you might find that they edit from different continents, pretty much ruling out that she's a sock of Light2021.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
                  • Hmm no I don't remember that. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for helping reduce the use of "served as", "serves as" and such like for what are not public service roles. In those two examples, "was" and "is" would be preferable (this last sentence is obviously not for your benefit, but might help someone else who reads this). Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I appreciate that--but I'm even stricter than you are: I think it's almost always a euphemism for "work"... Drmies (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I would like to be stricter, but encounter too much pushback from other editors. I think at most it should only be for unpaid, genuinely altruistic activity. As an example, and without wishing too be too cynical, far too many politicians are self-serving. And of course, we need to take into account that some reliable sources often still use the term for state sector jobs, military and politicians. Perhaps once it is removed from more business bios, we can start an RfC. Edwardx (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Edwardx, thanks--I thought I'd be careful, since I didn't want to butt heads with you after you sent me this nice message, but I agree with you completely. If you get paid, it's not service. If you get underpaid, it might approach service--but if you are underpaid and still make a fair amount of money (like, for instance, as president of the US), "service" is a bit of a euphemism. As far as reliable sources go--yeah, but in "serve as president" the operational part is "president", not "serve". I teach at a state university: is this service? I like to think so, for various reasons, but it's ludicrous to pretty much equate that with philanthropy (another item we see in ALL those articles), as if it didn't come with a paycheck and possibly health insurance. No Christmas bonuses, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Silicon Slopes

Thanks for your edits at Silicon Slopes. I had prepared this for a COI report, but was waiting for that editor's response:

• On November 30, 2023, that editor stated here: "this account is not a business account, anyone using this account will be doing so with direct supervision of the account owner, ie. I will be standing behind them any time the login is used".
• That editor then made a number of edits at Silicon Slopes that removed content sourced by secondary sources, and added content of a promotional tone, sourced by primary sources.
• That editor wrote a lengthy declaration of their purpose on the article talk page, stating, "I kindly request that any changes avoid undermining the hard work and dedication of many business owners and community members who have strived tirelessly to erase the stigma and stereotypes associated with the region."
• A Google search of "invise" and "Mike L." adds depth.

Certainly seems like a single-purpose editor trying to cleanse the article of well-sourced negative content. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, I feel the same way. Did you see what they tried to post on your talk page? See the filter log. But the problem with the article (I'm sure you saw my pruning) is, in my opinion, much bigger than just that. The negative information isn't about that organization, as far as I could tell from that confusing article. But they're p-blocked from the article now; who knows, maybe they'll figure out how to gain consensus for anything on the talk page. I will reiterate that the argument "it's negative stuff and it shows up in a search" is completely inappropriate here. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to add some well-sourced content back to the article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. You think, Magnolia677, the subject is notable, that organization? Cause all I see in a quick search is some promotional BS. It may be better to consider treating it as an economical "ecosystem". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait. I'm wrong: I should have figured that there was more in the history, including a lot of you. The article was about a region and for now I'm going to go back to this version; hope that's okay with you. Then we can take it from there. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This is where it got messed up. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Utah's tech community has been nicknamed Silicon Slopes, a reference to California's world famous Silicon Valley high tech commnity.
— Sanders, Doug; Herrington, Lisa M.; Waring, Kerry Jones (2015). "Making a Living". Utah: Third Edition. It's My State! (3rd ed.). Cavendish Square Publishing. p. 73. ISBN 9781627131780.

Increasingly a growing technology sector—the so-called Silicon Slopes—has developed around the Salt Lake–Utah County line.
— Brown, Adam R. (2018). Utah Politics and Government: American Democracy Among a Unique Electorate. Politics and Governments of the American States. University of Nebraska Press. p. 48. ISBN 9781496207852.

In Utah Valley, the coinage "Silicon Slopes," invented by Google in 2013 upon announcing that Provo would be the third city in the nation to receive a Google Fiber network, has been picked up eagerly by business leaders
— Farmer, Jared (2014). Alter, J. Cecil (ed.). "THIS WAS THE PLACE: The Making and Unmaking of Utah" (PDF). Utah Historical Quarterly. 82 (3). Utah State Historical Society: 188. doi:10.2307/45063063.

The non-advertorial independent sources strongly disagree with that first paragraph, Doktoro. Personally, I am inclined to take the word of the Walter H. Annenberg Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania published in a state historical society journal over what is said in a self-published corporate blurb. Uncle G (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Uncle G, I don't know what I did wrong: that is NOT the version I wanted to restore. Thank you. And it's nice to see you again. Keep your distance: I got something from my boy and I don't want to pass it on to you. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Take out your mask and pass Gustin 2013 along to Magnolia677, Doktoro. That, in addition to the history professor, will get you the Google Fiber connection. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Gustin, Sam (2013-04-18). "'Silicon Slopes': Google Fiber Planned For Provo, Utah". TIME.

Email

Yamla (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yamla, yes--go for it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Just got back from a weekend trip

Is there something pressing I should be looking at this eve? BusterD (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Haha I don't know. Can you make OSU and ND lose? I saw MidAtlanticBaby was at it again, yawn. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I saw the AN was protected from move. So somebody's active. I imagined today's DC stuff might create a bunch of new pages. I've been traveling all day and wanted to look around before I hit the sack. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ye Guofu

Thanks for catching that. It was a misclick. Things happen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I caught something? Yeah, some awful bug--been coughing and wheezing and sweating for days now. Kudpung, how are you doing these days? I would love to see where you live. Time is running out, isn't it, for all of use. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Article assistance

Well, given what you said above about being ill (sorry), I'm not sure you'll want to do this, but perhaps it would be a distraction. A new editor added unsourced material to Danylo Zabolotny. I left the editor a warning, and they re-added the material, this time with sources. The sources are unverifiable (by me at least), and there are various other issues, copy editing if nothing else, and I think you'd be much better than I at reviewing the material. My knowledge of long-deceased foreign epidemiologists is nil. Besides, articles about disease are not ideal for a hypochondriac. If not up to it or uninterested, I understand. Regardless, I hope you get better soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not a hypochondriac--in fact I'm an inveterate optimist, unfortunately. Yes, I'm ill, and I think I have some infection that's also making an infected tooth unbearably painful: I need this root canal done quickly, but everything here has ground down to a halt because of two inches of snow. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Pretty normal in the South. I remember once being at work, a few flakes of snow fell from the sky, and there was a mad dash for the exit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Yup. But this cold/flu/whatever I have delayed me: by the time I got to Blockbuster there were no copies of any of the Die Hards left. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Even when you're sick, you're funny.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I do what I can on a budget, Bbb. So this guy was indeed a badass--I got a bunch more from the source that was already cited, but there should be English sources as well for someone like this, and I'll have a look--and polish up my Ukrainian. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

OK "badass" is not enough credit. He worked with Richard P. Strong during the Third plague pandemic which killed maybe 15 million people. Have a look at this here--I was confused because I didn't see a thumbnail, but this lengthy description accompanies a photo of him and Strong in full moon suits. Amazing. Can we use it? I'm about to plow through the "First Report of the North Manchurian Plague Prevention Service", and there's this article. These are just the first couple of hits; we need to do better. Talk page followers, get to work! Papa is actually sick! You shouldn't let him do all the work! Drmies (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Your AN request

Voorts and I ran through the door at the same time, bonked heads, and fell to the floor.-- Ponyo 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• So who got the ten bucks? It's $10 for legal threats, right? Drmies (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • My standard retainer is $50K and your first born child. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Her retainer was only $5000. Are we talking about the same thing? Drmies (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      • You get what you pay for. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
          • I was talking about teeth... When I became admin we had a list of what kind of block was worth how much, with money transferred from the Foundation's San Francisco office via PayPal. I believe that well has dried up. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• I just want to see what kind of letter these guys wrote and who they sent it to. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • As a member of Drmies' legal team, I'll try to remember to send you a copy.-- Ponyo 00:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Shoot I got it all wrong: it's User:Cabayi's team who should be getting the letter. Seriously, I don't get it. I'm dealing with something similar at User talk:Footballmetadata--first there's the edits made in complete ignorance of what we are and what we do. Then there's the combative responses and the complete lack of the editor reading what was actually said and linked. Then there's one or two or three more editors saying the same thing, and the persistence on the disruptor's part, and then it's over, and no one feels good about it. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      • As I understand the threats, it is clearly a case of all your base are belong to us! You have no chance to survive! Geoff | 00:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hayden Miller Productions/ActuallyHayden

Hello - when I noticed this edit, I opened an SPI case for these users, but I see now that you've already blocked both, so there might not be much point to the case. Is it helpful to keep the case open? And if not, is there a way for me to withdraw it? (I couldn't find a way to do that.) Thanks! Wburrow (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's all too obvious, isn't it. Let me have a look and see what's best. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick A134 sockblock

Hi Doc! As you may recall, during a little kerfluffle a few years ago, I said I wouldn't block users who overtly support Trump, unless the disruption was blatant. To my slight surprise, that has almost never (maybe never at all?) come up—most people don't plaster their pro-Trump views in visible places, and those who do mostly fall under blatant disruption. Today, however, I've run into one who's not quite blatant enough for me to feel comfortable going ahead with a block, especially because I've reverted one of their content edits, but is still a DUCK for sockblock purposes, to anyone familiar with Architect134. Would you, or a talkpage watcher familiar with the case, mind taking a look?

• Tubend (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If it's not obvious on username and behavior alone, see .Courtesy ping User:JuxtaposedJacob, since I mentioned this to them elsewhere. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 07:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. If you run a check, I'm told the geolocation's a bit different lately. Obviously I can't see the shiny stuff under the hood, but I think Special:Contributions/129.222.253.60 was him. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they removed content, which we established in a talk page discussion was against content norms; would have AGF until Tamzin mentioned the LTA matter. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd almost forgotten about the outing and the smearing. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The right-wing trolls are out again, Tamzin. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)