User talk:Alexf/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

User:186.90.68.124

Ah, sorry Alex. It looks like I overwrote your block by accident! I went ahead and reverted it back to the one you started with. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello

HI I Found A Refrense For Babak Rahnama Can You Restore Babak's Biography???? https://m.myritm.com/Artist/Babak-Rahnama

That is not a reliable reference to assert notability. In the future please link to the article (or red link) as requested at the top of the edit page. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages by adding four tildes at the end. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

208.54.80.175

208.54.80.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please revoke talk page access? Adding porn to page. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Kuru (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had started to hide edits when an important phone call came, so I could not resume for a while. Good job. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

request for creating page

Page RaashikhannaDHFR (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you have to be more specific. The request is unclear. You are pointing to your user page, which already exists. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Alex,

You deleted my user page Ray Anyasi. You sighted it is promotional but to be honest, I read the terms of use before writing that page and tried my best to stay in line. I linked most of my sighted works to verifiable sources and made sure I did not use languages of high praise of self. In addition to that, may I add that there are several other sources on the Internet not created by me that carries my works. Most of which can be found by just typing my name on Google.

I ask that you kindly review this case when you find time. If you do and still do not think I deserve to be on Wikipedia at the moment, then I would appreciate if you can explain to me why.

Kind Regards, Ray Anyasi. Ray Anyasi (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Woody Woodpecker (2017 film)

The user you blocked has returned to vandalize Woody Woodpecker (2017 film) again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Disney theatrical animated features

We got another problem. The same Woody Woodpecker vandal has returned again, this time over at List of Disney theatrical animated features. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Page has been protected already. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Page of Manoranjan Ravichandran

Hi am Prasanna own www.naminema.com a online Kannada movie portal and have been involved with wiki page creation and updating related to Kannada movie for sometime now, I have volunteer to create the page of Manoranjan Ravichandran but it has been marked for deletion and hence opened this discussion thread.

Firstly the wiki movie page Saheba exits from quite long time now, the purpose of this page was to create page for lead actor of that movie . Also the movie has completed its theatrical run and hence this page of Manoranjan Ravichandran created for movie promotions is completely false. Also there are plenty of news article available online of Manoranjan Ravichandran second movie in progress. Which in due course will be updated with references. This page creation intention is to keep updated on the actor progress in Kannada Film industry. While I don't want it as sound Nepotism but his Father V. Ravichandran is well established star in South Indian Film industry with the wiki page as a proof. Also his Grand Father V. Veeraswamy who was noted producer of Kannada movies.

So, with so much of Film background I really contest of having this page makes sense than to mark delete it saying it's one of the movie of the actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannakumarbg (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Deprod: Aftab Ahmed Vohra

Hello, I have deprodded Aftab Ahmed Vohra because it has been to AFD before. I did this for procedural reasons only; if you still wish to pursue deletion please feel free to open another AFD. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@KuyaBriBri: I was not aware it was done before. I stumbled on the article and it seems weak to me. Might go AfD again. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Karl The Fog

Hello,

I was editing and adding to the San Francisco Fog page because I am Karl The Fog.

I actually own the name, with trademark.

Should I just create a new page named as "Karl The Fog"?

Just wondering, not trying to "vandalize" the page as you called it.

Let me know what I can and should do.

Thank you for your time,

Karl Twiford karl@karlthefog.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlthefog (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

What does San Francisco fog have to do with you? Why do you want to add your name to that article? As per creating a page for yourself, you can edit your user page (within limits). Creating an article? No. Conflicts of interest and autobiographies are frowned upo. Before you create a new article, you must learn what is required, so please follow the Golden Rule. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages by adding four tildes at the end. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed links to on-Topic Podcasts

I added a bunch of links under "external links" to various articles, providing a link for readers to listen to a podcast on the exact topic of the Wikipdedia article in question. Someone undid all of these additions, and then had me suspended for three days for "spamming". I fail to see how adding a legitimate external link to an non-commercial site and which provide the reader with more information on the article's topic constitutes "spam." If you think otherwise, please let me know why so that we can agree on the appropriate way to move forward.

Below is an example of one of the articles in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Carillon

I added the fourth external link: Podcast discussing the 1758 assault on Fort Carillon https://amrevpodcast.blogspot.com/2017/09/episode-010-new-british-strategy-fort.html

Thank you.

@Mtroy: The problem with blogs is they are not reliable sources. Please read WP:BLOGS. It looks like your are spamming to direct traffic to them, even if that is not your intention, or they are not commercial or for-profit. That does not make a difference. In cases like this you are well advised to discuss them in the article's Talk page for the community to comment. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages by adding four tildes at the end. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually surprised that a site like Wikipedia, which was founded on the principle of making more information free and accessible, would have a rule that limits links on topics like this mostly to sources which are behind pay walls. I was also surprised by the blanket rule against blog references, since I have seen references to a great many other history blogs in Wikipedia articles. Enforcement of this rule seems rather arbitrary. I thought I was making a good contribution to the dissemination more information on this subject matter. If Wikipedia thinks otherwise, I'm disappointed but I guess I'll go elsewhere. I have no interest in being a disruptive element to you or anyone else at Wikipedia.

Mtroy (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)mtroy

Ha!

Ha! Funny history. I never get there first, so I'm quite pleased. At first I couldn't understand why your block template was gone from the page — I thought I must have messed up. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

A matter of timing. I pressed the wrong button, so I went to redo and you hit it first. No issues.-- Alexf^(talk) 20:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

TPA

[1] - You may wish to revoke talk page access –72 _(talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 00:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Alexf^(talk) 00:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Added fact

I knew the area and added just fact some people delete my organization page 4 times i never mind. Wikipedia want reference i gave them even from news paper. Waseem A (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Spamming your own name is not acceptable, on top of that with no article and references to assert notability. Furthermore, using two accounts to edit is considered socking and not acceptable. Please read the rules about notability, sourcing, and socking. --- ~~

User:Wacots/Wayne County Training School

You deleted User:Wacots/Wayne County Training School. I don't think the article was promotional because it refers to a defunct establishment that closed in 1974, and having an acronym as a user name is not the same as having an organization name asa user name. As a high school, it would be automatically notable; as a prison (which might be more accurate), possibly not. I didn't create the article. I saw it on the list of candidates for speedy deletion and decided to take a look. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not deleted for notability issues, (you are correct, a school would be notable), but promotional, having been done by the same organization. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

72.76.109.199

Hello. I wanted to let you know that is anonymous editor, 72.76.109.199, who you blocked for three days on the 25th, immediately returned to making the same kind of edits as soon as the block expired. He's not active at the moment, but my guess is that he did not get the message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's get them to a Level 3 warning at least. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. He's been reverting every edit he made before he was blocked. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Questioning one of your blocks

Hello! Some hours ago, I questioned a 31 hour block you made.

I can't believe how unobservant I was. Now corrected. Moral: I need two cups of coffee before making any edit of that nature. Sorry! -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hoary: That was the edit that triggered the vandalism block. He was also repeatedly warned. No worries. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Billy Guilfoyle

User talk:Billy Guilfoyle who you blocked for a promotional username, has had his name changed and has pledged to avoid promotional editing. I'm inclined to unblock per WP:ROPE. Any objections? --Jayron32 19:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: No objections. As noted to him, those sentences were entirely promotional. I'll keep watch also per WP:ROPE. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Farhad Hasanzadeh

Just out of curiosity, did you check to see if the actual "meat" of the page was copied from another source? Lists cannot be copyrighted, so huge 94% "match" of their list of books is not enough reason to delete. I was in the process of cleaning up the draft when you deleted it, so I just restored the content. Something to think about in the future, I suppose. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Point taken. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Railfan23 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now what transpired. At the time it was a clear case of edit warring. Now it has been resolved as sock-puppetry and accounts blocked. Good work! -- Alexf^(talk) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure, many thanks for your help, which was gratefully received. Railfan23 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Kevin Wilshaw article

I see that you deleted the Kevin Wilshaw article yesterday. (Sorry, I don't know how to create a red link.)

I encountered the news reports on Kevin Wilshaw yesterday and today, and came to Wikipedia to find out more about him. I was surprised to discover that the article was deleted, apparently on the exact day that he was in the news. The news articles appeared yesterday and today in many leading publications (The Guardian, Huffington Post, Business Insider, Daily Mail, Washington Post....). The Guardian describes him as "a prominent neo-Nazi," and other publications use similar wording.

If I understand it correctly, A7 means that the article lacked any indication of the importance of the subject. But since he's clearly prominent, judging from all the news reports, wouldn't it be better to revise the article to give an indication of why the subject is important, rather than deleting it because it lacks this information? Or perhaps to put a notice at the top of the article that it needs this information. Apparently an A7 is a speedy deletion, which is appropriate in cases where an administrator (you, I think) has little doubt that the reason is justified. But that does not seem to be right in this case. Instead of a speedy deletion, wouldn't it be more appropriate to *propose* deletion, then discuss it for awhile on the Talk page to reach a consensus? (Or maybe there was such a discussion, but it was deleted when the article was deleted?)

I can't understand why the deletion was justified, in light of the many news articles.

(I have to admit that I'm not fully familiar with Wikipedia's policies or the mechanics of how deletion works or how talk pages or articles might be archived. So maybe there's already been such a discussion and consensus, and I just don't know where to look for it.)

Omc (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Omc: The article you are referring to is Kevin Wilshaw. It was deleted for lack of notability (A7). Are you requesting it to be undeleted and placed in your sandox for further work? This can be done upon request. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad if you could. I don't have any particular interest in this subject and will work on it if I have time. However, I'm curious: why did you choose the "speedy deletion" route, rather than to propose deletion on the talk page and wait for a consensus? Omc (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A7 isn't for lack of notability, but rather for "No indication of importance . . . This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Smooth alligator (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I can restore it. Maybe it was hasty. I need to be sure though. Note: I will be out of town Thursday to Sunday. If needed contact any other admin to do it as I only have a few hours left before the trip. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User:TryToBeFunny

Hello, Alex. Why did you revert my edit on TV Tropes? I was only adding information, since that page is pretty outdated. 28 October 2017

@TryToBeFunny: Sorry. Should've said but with rush... It was a copy edit issue as it said separated when it sounded better at separates. Re-reading, you may be right. Go ahead an put it back if you wish. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Joaquinito99999 (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joaquinito01. Regarding the username and editing pattern, would you consider an indef block? –72 _(talk) 15:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I see now. I left a short block and a note for the user. Will watchlist and next block will be indefinite. Please add the new account to the suspected socklist. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. –72 _(talk) 15:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Alexf:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 19:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

User:Knson

Hi Alexf, this user appears to be a sock of User:86.134.3.228, whom you recently temp-banned. Knson's unuseful edits mount (i.e. 1, 2) and they are still unresponsive to warnings (WP:AVI entry is still open).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Carl Sargeant: Cause of death (suicide) should NOT be written as if it had already been established (contempt of court)

In the United Kingdom (England and Wales), whether a person has died (in a suspicious, unnatural or unexplained death) from suicide or not, is usually only formally and properly established, concluded or determined by someone called a coroner, in something called a Coroner's Inquest ... until the Inquest on the matter of the death of the late Carl Sargeant AM has been concluded, I would suggest that reports of suicide from even from such eminent and respectable journals as the Mirror, the Guardian, the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star should not be misused here in order to "jump the gun" before the coroner (and his jury, if there is to be one) has actually have the chance of finishing doing his (or their) job under the Coroners Act 1988 (1998 c. 13) [2] and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (2009 c. 25) [3]. "From an unconfirmed suspected suicide", not "from suicide". (Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [4], which also covers the work of coroners and Coroners' Courts, the maximum penalty according to Section 14(1)(2) [5] is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both. [6][7][8]: "Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial.") --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to suggest you discuss this in Talk:Carl Sargeant but I see you are already doing that. This is not the place for this. I have had nothing to do with the article or the subject and had no connection to it other than answering a request for Semi-Protection. Please continue the discussion there. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at WT:MOS#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article. --Izno (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Reponse "Sammie Update"

You left the following message "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sammie. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion." End Quote

Ebonynsweet.com is the faster growing Contemporary R&B Website in the US currently ranked at 8th place. We have 10,000 monthly visitors and have been recognized by Sammie and countless other signed-recording artists on twitter and instagram. Wikipedia allows other R&B websites such as Thisisrnb.com to leave external links on dozens of artist's pages. Why isn't the same standard applied to them? My external links wasn't promotional in nature. They were simply applied to allow the fans to have all the information and easily access his music.

84.56% of thisisrnb.com webtraffic comes from referrals on Wikipedia, check for yourself. You might need to spend more time correcting this, than bothering Sammeie's fans. https://www.similarweb.com/website/thisisrnb.com#referrals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebonynsweet (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You have removed vital information which included 7 albums and mixtapes that he released between 2009-2012. And as result Sammie's fans will not be properly informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebonynsweet (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait. Your user name is the name of your website, and you come here to promote? How did I miss that? Sorry then. Blocked for contravening Wikipedia's policies. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Abnormallylong1→Blocked sock of Abnormallylong

I just blocked Abnormallylong1 as a sock of Abnormallylong that you globally blocked. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Hi! Please check these userpages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shameel_Done (you recently blocked this)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shameel_Ahmed
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shameel_Photo_Copier
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ahmed_Shameel_Ahmed
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A_Shameel
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A.Shameel.K
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShameelKhokhar7786

Also, File:Ahmed Shameel.jpg. Thanks! M. Billoo 19:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All blocked. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Please see these too:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ahmad_Shameel_Ahmad
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shameel_Ahmed_Shameel
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shameel9970 (maybe)

Can someone else add "Template:Sockpuppet|Shameel Done|blocked" tag, or only admin power is required? Also, please check how the user has vandalised different pages, like Fawad Khan. Thanks! M. Billoo 03:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:78.99.19.203

Think you might as well revoke their talk here, now they're removing the ISP tag. Home Lander (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Long Island

Hi Alexf - would it be possible for you to protect this article indefinitely (for now)? The vandalism issue for whatever reason tends to be recurrent with this article, perhaps just not to the most recent extent. Thanks for considering. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Indefinitely requires a lot more than what I see, just an IP or two on one day. The proper place to request this is at RFPP in any case. This way it will be seen by many admins on duty. I just watchlisted the page to keep an eye on and see what happens when the page protection expires. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC) -- Alexf^(talk) 02:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alexf, I was curious about what was going on at this page, and sure enough, there has been more vandalism. The territory in question is a cosmopolitan area with 8 million people in the NYC metro area - in my humble opinion, this is just the type of page vandals love to attack, and this particular wikipage would be better served by being restricted to autoconfirmed users - just my thoughts. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I looked again. I see no edits since Nov 20 (a week ago), therefore I see no reason for semi-protecting the page at this time. Wikipedia is open to everyone, so we protect pages sparingly, and only when the situation warrants it. I see no reason there (yet). In any case, please ask this in the future at RFPP, the proper place for these requests, and be sure to read the instructions on that page. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh

Re: this, I'm pretty sure that's just the standard message you get when you start TWA. GMG^talk 00:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Sure, except he wrote it himself. Pathetic. -- -Alexf^(talk) 01:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Iqra Ali has already been temporarily blocked for vandalism to articles and other editors' Talk pages, then deleted all that from own Talk page and changed same to make it look like a fresh start. For a supposed newbie, seem quite knowledgeable. And annoying. David notMD (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: We are waiting after helping him to some rope. --Alexf^(talk) 07:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. First time I've seen that one. GMG^talk 10:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, no. I think this is normally how it looks. Compare this. Unless I'm mistaken, TWA kindof... makes the edit on the user's behalf. GMG^talk 14:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I do not see them often enough and never pay attention to them. I'll fix it. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. And now this is a thing that happened by a few sandboxes. Coincidence? GMG^talk 20:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Not a coincidence, I do not think. Been watching those two, (maybe a sock?), and waiting for enough rope. If you see any rule-breaking please warn and report to AIV. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Likely sock, as WTFT did some test edits on IA's Talk, with same use of "Yo." Might be establishing WTFT in anticipation of IA being blocked again. I mentioned this in a note on Cullen's (Teahouse Admin) Talk. David notMD (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is possible. I have them both watchlisted. Wait and see. As long as they do not edit, we do not know, nor there is any urgency at this moment to investigate socking. If you want, you could open a sock case and have a CheckUser look into it, but I wouldn't hurry as they are busy, and there is no pressing need. This could change once they edit again. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ta-da! Both blocked indef for sock and blanking editor's Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My link JD WARNIER

Hello,

I anderstand your point of view, you can delete this link.

thank you

serge MENEUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serge meneut (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Whenever you talk to someone about an edit, please put a link like this: Logic in computer science or a diff if it makes it better to understand the issue. The important thing here is to understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a place for spam or promotion. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works, please ask at the Tea House. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

User talk:Lamersrob is pledging to avoid promotional editing, and I'm inclined to invoke WP:ROPE to see where they go from here. You blocked them (under a prior username), so I'm giving you right of first refusal here. Is there any objection to the unblock? If not, I'll process it. --Jayron32 20:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32:. The original user name was "Stamford american" and was actively editing Stamford American International School. Under the new name they propose to keep editing said article. That still looks like a conflict of interest to me. That said, if they edit impartially, following the rules, and their edits are backed up by sources, then I have no objection. I will watchlist for a while. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I will watch as well. Thanks for the reply. I will leave a note to this effect. --Jayron32 21:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...but, when I saw the section heading, I thought it was Alexf making the unblock request! 😱 😀 — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 21:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

About your block explanation of 191.222.150.158

In your block explanation, you wrote that 191.222.150.158 had been caught by the filters. While this is true, you failed to mention my report of said user. Did you miss my warnings because the user cleared the talk page, probably to avoid you seeing them, after noticing my report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Missed the note, yes. Makes no difference. IP is blocked for a while. -- Alexf^(talk) 03:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You might have to do more than that. Another IP account recently made the same comments—but with your name added. If the user has a VPN or something, and is using IP accounts as sockpuppets, that could be difficult to block.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 03:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This confirms my suspicions. (See the last line.) You might have to put the sandbox filters on maximum sensitivity or something.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's not how edit filters work. See Wikipedia:Edit filter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. The admin will get what I mean.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Also this block is only half as long as this block, which doesn't make sense to me since the user was committing block evasion as well as vandalism.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with Sabrina Ho

Would you be willing to look at the issue I posted at User_talk:Spartaz#Sabrina_Ho? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No time today. If you need assistance and eyes to look it over you could ask at ANI. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the issue has been resolved. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

hello Alexf

I'm not sure if I'm at the right place to reply to your message, this is my first time on Wikipedia, so please bear with me. I'm writing to you in regards Sarah's Abdali Idan post. I don't know or understand what or where I went wrong on my editing!? Could you please enlighten me on this matter? Zaharahaddad (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You added your name to the References section of an article on Sarah Abdali Idan as in this edit. Adding your name, to an article is not proper. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works, please ask at the Tea House. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Narasingapadu (The Great NSP)

Hi,

Can you restore Narasingapadu (The Great NSP). A new editor made a mess of things by overwriting an existing article as well as creating this article making out look like a duplicate. It also belongs at Narasingapadu which has a leftover redirect that needs to be deleted. Thanks. --Whpq (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No. As-is it is a rewrite of the existing article. It was properly deleted as such and makes no sense to restore. If it is a completely different subject, then that info does not show in the article's history. Please explain. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

see this page move and version which shows an overwrite of the existing article. They are two different villages but the inexperienced editor overwrote the existing article with his new article and moved it. He also created the same material under the Narasingapadu (The Great NSP) title. I thought it was an A10 at first as well before realizing it was an article overwrite.--Whpq (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Two different? Narasingapadu and Nandivelugu then? Restored and renamed. Please check and watchlist for a while,lest he vandalizes again. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. As horribly botched as it was, I think it was a good faith attempt at a new article rather than vandalism. I will be keeping a watch on it though. The article itself needs a review which I'll get to a little later. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion

The recent unregistered user you blocked evaded its block at Talk:Main Page. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No confirmation it is same user. Report at AIV if so. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reduction of military conscription in Cyprus

Hi Alex,

I received a message from you regarding my addition on Cypriot National Guard and the Reduction of military conscription in Cyprus site. I had only included the link to reference properly. This is not important, so if the Wikipedia policy is limiting links, then it can just be removed and readers can look it up online.

I dont work for the Cyprus Centre for Strategic Studies. There is a lot going on with the reduction of military conscription now in Cyprus, as this is the longest conscription in the EU. I thought that’s this is significant information thus I wished to add a bit about it. The Cyprus Centre for Strategic Studies is the main centre that deals with military issues on Cyprus. I have published widely on these issues and have included some sources from elsewhere also. The ones from CCSS felt that were adding credibility given its key role in the context of Cyprus.

I am happy to review any of the material if there is something that you believe needs addressing.

Kind regards,

Stratis

STra (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Please always start a new section in Talk so it does not get mixed with whatever was there before. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't add promotional user name to WP:UAA

Hi, a protection filter is preventing me from adding a user name to WP:UAA. This user name is promoting a blacklisted streaming website here. Can you help please? —Bruce1ee^talk 17:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee: Blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 20:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Échame la Culpa

Hi. Can you please revert your edit to Échame la Culpa? That paragraph is a summary of what is sourced in the charts section. We don't necessarily need references in the lead if the material is sourced in the body of the article, which it is. Ss112 22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I see.  Done. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Pthakur1967

Can you check on User talk:Pthakur1967. Their most recent unblock request has been unacted on for a long time; they're admission looks sufficient for WP:ROPE, and I am inclined to unblock, but I wanted to get your input. Thanks! --Jayron32 15:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32:. I re-read the case. Ok, go ahead with it. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Xxtheoxx

I notice you removed their email access. Any reason? Widr (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mistake. Also noticed we blocked on same minute. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I noticed. I don't otherwise stalk your blocks, don't worry. :) Widr (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requirement for sufficient warnings

Kudos to you, sir, for your high standards when it comes to AIV reports! I agree completely, and wish our IP-hopping AIV reporter would actually follow AIV criteria 2 and 3, rather than just seemingly nominate for punishment every non-constructive IP address who edits. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

:) -- Alexf^(talk) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)