User talk:Blablubbs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Happy New Year, Blablubbs!

Happy New Year!

Blablubbs,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 01:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A message from Shazertom

Good morning Blablubbs, and Happy New Year! I am the Spanish-into-English translator who asked you for help the other day, and I followed your very useful advice – I found an article on the Spanish language Wikipedia, created a subpage in my user space where I pasted it, and noted its provenance in the edit summary. I now have additional questions, and when you have a moment, I will appreciate any additional guidance which you can give me.

1) The article I found already exists in the English language Wikipedia, which has a note saying that it could be expanded with additional material from the Spanish version, which is more extensive. I assume that I should just edit the English version rather than try to replace it with a translation of the entire Spanish article, yes? If so, then my next question is this: much of the content in the English version is different (not necessarily inaccurate, just different) from the content in the corresponding sections of the Spanish version - should I replace the English content with a translation of the Spanish, or edit it with additional material from the corresponding Spanish, or should I just leave it alone?

2) If I am just editing the existing English article, I would want to add new sections (translated sections from sections in the Spanish article) to it – can you tell me how to do that? Or point me in the direction of someone who could?

3) You were quite right, the articles (in both languages) which I pasted into my subpage look nothing like the actual articles – no images, none of the links work, none of the graphics (like boxes which contain text in addition to images) are present, the basic formatting is messed up. I assume that I need to fix all of that - yes? If that is the case, I would need help (from you or from some other source) to learn how to do that; if you were available to help me with that process when I begin it, or could point in the direction of some other source of help, I would appreciate that.

Thank you for your time and assistance.Shazertom (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shazertom, a Happy New Year to you too!

1. Yes, I'd recommend expanding the article step by step.
2. There's a quick guide to creating new sections at Help:Section.
3. It looks like you just copy-pasted the plain text version of the page? My way to go about this is to copy the source of the origin page – you can find it by clicking here. As it is now, it will be very annoying to fix – copying the source makes that substantially easier. Sorry if I wasn't clear in IRChelp. Let me know if I can help you with something else. Blablubbs|talk 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Blablubbs. 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.

Blablubbs, thank you for your quick reply. With your most recent advice I will get to work on translating the additional sections from the source article; I imagine I will have some more questions after a few days, and I will visit your talk page again when I do. I appreciate your willingness to help. Shazertom (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

When should something be draftified?

When should something be draftified? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 4thfile4thrank. Pages should be draftified when the topic has merit, the article is clearly not up to standard and not being actively improved. The details are at WP:DRAFTIFY. Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

G3 tags

I know you're just trying to clean up vandalism, but I think it's best to just leave the "NinjaRobotPirate is corrupt" stuff alone. It's just some aggrieved sock, and giving them this kind of attention guarantees that they're going to do it even more often (see WP:DENY). Also, tagging every page that they've ever edited for speedy deletion makes more work for admins. In the end, it's best to just ignore it, I think. I did revoke talk page access for the IP range, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate yeah, on second thought I realised that too. Sorry for the overzealous tagging. Best, Blablubbs|talk 14:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. If you see another trolling spree like this, it might be best to alert me on my talk page, and I can range block them. And, hopefully, I'll remember next time to revoke talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do :). Blablubbs|talk 14:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(To clarify, my reasoning was that if we're going to get rid of it, we might as well delete so it doesn't get preserved at all, but I definitely see your point.) Blablubbs|talk 14:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

message from smellymoo

I am having problems with Moonythedwarf on the Falling-sand_game page. They are removing content leaving the page as a stub even though the page has twice been nominated for removal and been declined. Each time I put back the page they remove everything. Granted they are correct and the page is a WIP and needs rewriting, but how is deleting all the sections helpful? what do I do?

Look at history of the page, I keep trying to improve it, and then they come along and remove whole sections without raising it in the talk page.

Help! ~ Smellymoo 12:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

message from halliemccarthy

Hi, I think I got a message from you saying I havea COI with the page I was trying to edit? Thi is my first time editing so I apologize if I'm going about this all wrong (I have no idea what I'm doing). I'm an admin in the same department as Hamid Ghandehari so I guess that would be a COI. We jsut wanted to update his page with more recent info (he had a title hcange, new website, etc). How can I make this happen?

Thanks! Halliemccarthy (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Halliemccarthy Hi, thanks for your message and thanks for being transparent. Given that you have a conflict of interest, you should disclose that on your userpage using {{UserboxCOI}} and not edit directly; instead, please file edit requests using our handy wizard (click "I have a conflict of interest" and go from there). I would also ask you to familiarise yourself with our conflict of interest guidelines and to not blank COI tags from articles when you have a conflict of interest yourself – that should by assessed by an unconnected editor. I hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

{{Request Edit}}

• What I think should be changed (include citations):

Hamid Ghandehari Hamidreza (Hamid) Ghandehari is a pharmaceutical scientist whose lab has made contributions to the understanding of the transepithelial transport of polymeric carriers for oral drug delivery, design and development of polymer-drug conjugates for solid tumor therapy, design of recombinant polymers for localized gene delivery and as liquid embolics, and the understanding of the influence of physicochemical properties of inorganic nanoparticles on their toxicity. Hamid was born and raised in Tehran, Iran. He immigrated to the United States and received both his BS and PhD degrees from The University of Utah College of Pharmacy. He is currently professor and chair of the Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, and Professor of Biomedical Engineering at The University of Utah. He Founded and Directs The Utah Center for Nanomedicine and serves as Editor in Chief of Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. In his free time he enjoys hiking and skiing in the Wasatch Mountains, traveling and spending time with family. External links: HAMIDREZA GHANDEHARI Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TseikdAAAAAJ&hl=en HAMIDREZA GHANDEHARI Pubmed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=hamidreza+ghandehari&sort=date Ghandehari Lab https://pharmacy.utah.edu/ghandehari-lab/ Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry https://pharmacy.utah.edu/pharmaceutics/ Department of Biomedical Engineering https://www.bme.utah.edu/ Utah Center for Nanomedicine https://pharmacy.utah.edu/nanomedicine/ University of Utah Utah.edu Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews https://www.journals.elsevier.com/advanced-drug-delivery-reviews

Halliemccarthy, that's definitely a start (though after a quick glance, I do want to note you will have to provide sources for all statements you make and I think some of the language is too technical), but such requests should go on the talk page of the article, not on mine – please place it there :). I have nullified the template. Best Blablubbs|talk 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Why it should be changed:

Condensing old info into a simpler format and updating some CV info Halliemccarthy (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Account creator granted

After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! stwalkerster (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit: thanks! Huldra (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Further info: I met User:Quorum816 over at Yousef Al Otaiba (see talk): there was some info there they really, really wanted out. It went twice to the BLP-boards etc. (Heh: how to made sure that that info is permanently in the article ...)

Cheers, and thanks again, Huldra (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Huldra, it's much appreciated, as are your efforts in battling tendentious socks! :) Please feel free to drop a note here if you come across any similar accounts (email, IRC and Discord work too, if you prefer). I'll take a look at the page history of the Al Otaiba article later and see if there are more socks involved – VentureKit often collaborates with other, less sophisticated sockfarms. I'll drop a note on the talk page if I find anything interesting. Best wishes, Blablubbs|talk 00:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

message from installations2020

Hello, You got my page deleted under the premises that I work for the company I made the page for. I do not understand this but I will remake the page and let you you that there are no transactions being made. Please let me know if I do it incorrectly. Cheers Installations2020 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)installations2020

@Installations2020 I tagged your page for deletion not because of your employment status, but because it was a) unambiguously promotional and b) a serious copyright violation. Could you clarify if you have any connection (current or past employment, stock ownership, personal or business relationships etc.) with the company you're writing about? Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Warned vandal keeps coming back

Hi! This one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.186.200.81

And he also holds at least one user now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skandura

Keeps vandalising FCSB page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCSB&action=history

I bet most of the users on that page are his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F09:3A17:BD00:CDB7:7E42:C947:340E (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:ZenHub page

Hello Blablubbs, Just wanted to answer your concerns about me adding ZenHub page. No, I'm not being directly or indirectly compensated for editing Draft:ZenHub page. Geenue (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

😃

Tatupiplu'^talk 18:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Israel Canada

Regarding Israel Canada I want to know what specific changes are needed in order to approve this article. After all, this is a major Israeli investment firm, worth billions of dollars, and one of major 125 companies of the Tel Aviv Stock exchange. Maorkap3 (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Maorkap3, thanks for your message. I'll also reply here to the things you raised on your talk page, so that we don't split the conversation. As I pointed out in my draftification message, disclosed paid editors should submit any creations through AfC to have them reviewed by someone without a conflict of interest. That wasn't my only reason for draftification though – the article also has problems with regard to policy compliance; it appears promotional both in wording and structure (the list of projects and activities makes it look like a portfolio, for example). My draftification was only based on these two things; I can't speak for notability – I made my call without assessing the sources. My recommendation to you is to give the article another read, reduce the listing of projects, rewrite the lead to sound more neutral and then click the "submit" button to have a reviewer take a look. Regarding your disclosure question: The disclosure is indeed fine (and thanks for complying with our paid editing policies there – many people don't). I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for your detailed answer. I have reviewed the Article and made several changes. I kept some of the projects but reduced their description. Hopefully now the article will be approved. Maorkap3 (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Gagan Gupta deletion

Hello Blablubbs, Thanks for looking at the page I just translated from the french wikipedia : Gagan Gupta . I am new on the english wikipedia. I saw your speedy deletion request. Could you please help me to improve the page and to neutralize it, or give me some piece of advice? I added as much sources as i could in english from google news articles. Thanks! Rastapeuplulos (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User talk:CharlesShirley

Hi, Blablubbs. I thought it was simpler and neater to remove the 3RR section — hope you agree. Just put it back if you like, or I will, if you prefer. Regards, Bishonen | tålk 22:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen, I definitely do – I was tempted to do it myself, but didn't since you had already commented. Thanks, and sorry again, I somehow managed to not read the notice before dropping the warning. Best, Blablubbs|talk 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Not sure the user in question has read the notice either — they have already violated the ban. Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

Addiko related

Hello Blablubbs. Thank you for your guidelines. I have included Template Paid on my user page. Hope it is acceptable. Please advise. Kind regards! RinaLina (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi RinaLina, and sorry for the late response. The disclosure looks good, thanks for being transparent. Can I ask you to file edit requests to propose changes on the article's talk page from now on, as opposed to editing directly? We have a handy wizard here that makes this easier. Blablubbs|talk 10:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I have proposed changes on the article's talk page (Addiko Bank) and I got the answer to wait as I am the 163rd in line. Is there anything else I can do? Thank you again. RinaLina (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Blablubbs. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Styles Hutchins

On 17 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Styles Hutchins, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that attorney Styles Hutchins was the first African American to argue a case in a court in Georgia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Styles Hutchins. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Styles Hutchins), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the hard work you do here-- Nice work on Styles Hutchins! Eddie891 Talk Work 00:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Eddie891! It's very much appreciated. :) Blablubbs|talk 01:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Blablubbs. 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.— MarioGom (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom, thanks. Read and replied. Blablubbs|talk 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks!

got a message from you regarding citation and COI concerns! i'm following this anarcha monument development and editing pages/authors/artists/persons related to it. i have gone through and cited all of the previously uncited sentences on the page. sometimes the information is already cited, but in a different section or paragraph, so i wasn't sure that i had to cite every sentence... i think/hope it's good now. i will submit for review and see if it's appropriate now. still kind of learning wiki stuff. thanks again. Endlessnapalm (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Endlessnapalm, thanks for your message. Please take care to also fix any adverty language (of which there is a fair bit at the moment, e.g. a social enterprise aimed at bridging the racial divide by providing educational tours to students and tourists in Montgomery, Alabama) and to ensure that the references you provideclearly show that she meets WP:NBIO. The latter means that you show that she as an individual has received in-depth (no passing mentions, listicles or similar) coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources that have some significance of their own (e.g. major national newspapers). Happy editing, feel free to reach out if you have any questions or concerns. Best wishes, Blablubbs|talk 17:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Tomos Roberts (AfD)

Blablubbs... I'm curious to know why you refuse to take Theroadislong to task for accusing me of sock puppetry, when this investigation is still occurring? For the record, I have NOT engaged in this. I am unequivocal as per this! Also, why haven't you admonished Berchanhimez for cursing while conversing with me (on AfD page in question)? These incidents are plainly there for everyone to see, but you've said/done nothing, yet you continually admonish me. I'm simply looking for a modicum of consistency and fairness. Thanks! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

Ryancoke2020, I haven't reverted or collapsed the comments of Theroadislong or Berchanhimez because neither of them were making personal attacks or casting aspersions against fellow editors; neither of them engaged in bludgeoning the discussion either. I suggest you drop the stick: Your comments in that discussion have been inappropriate, uncivil, and incompatible with a collaborative environment. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. You have said your piece in the deletion discussion; attacking your fellow editor doesn't strengthen your case. I suggest you step away for a bit and find another page to contribute to; you've made 1800 edits to the article about Tomos Roberts, and I get that it's frustrating to see the page up for deletion, but we have millions of articles to focus on while the discussion plays out. I hope this clarifies the issue. Blablubbs|talk 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs... Indeed, it's very frustrating and disheartening. Is there any way the page is salvaged or have I done irreparable harm? What about a suggestion that it's "too soon" re: notability? This would be a compromise of sorts. I would also pledge to do better going forward. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

@Ryancoke2020, given that it's at AfD, you'll just have to let the discussion play out. The community may opt for draftification if they see fit, but it may well be that the page will be deleted – if the notability aspect changes in the future, it's likely that you can have it refunded. Blablubbs|talk 23:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs... Thank you! I apologize for bothering you, but could you tell me what draftification means? Second, would it benefit me to strike ("strike through") the personal attacks on AfD? Lastly, would it be beneficial to suggest WP:TOOSOON on AfD and see if a compromise can be worked out? Admittedly, I'm new to all of this. It's a bit overwhelming. Thank you, once again. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

@Ryancoke2020, the details about the draftification process are at WP:DRAFTIFY. You can make a TOOSOON argument, but remember to keep it brief and civil. As for the attacks, I have collapsed most, if not all of them, but formally acknowledging that they were wrong and apologising to the editors involved is a good thing. I hope this helps. Blablubbs|talk 23:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is also what I tried to hint at - that it may be too soon. I will not be surprised if this person becomes notable. But at this time, he does not appear to be. The amount of coverage he's been getting is definitely large, and if it continues to grow, I think it may be worth revisiting in a year, or even sooner if he gets more coverage faster. I have no problem with it being moved back to a draft for incubation - and I don't fault the person who accepted it at AFC for doing so, as it certainly appears notable at first glance due to the massive amount of links that can be provided. I'll comment this at the AFD too to make clear. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Possibly (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

hello

Hi, I just wanted to say your username is so cool and unique! Thanks for reading this --Ilikememes128 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained blankings

Hello. Why are you mass reverting edits to Röhm Gesellschaft and deleting the talkpage comments of others from Talk:Forgotten Weapons? Please don't do that again, especially without an edit summary. OrgoneBox (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@OrgoneBox, it's a WP:BANREVERT – the user in question is an LTA. I should've probably provided a summary there, but I assumed the fact that the account is globally locked would make it clear – sorry. Blablubbs|talk 17:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I won't revert you, but I recommend at least removing the talk page comments. Banned users should not be extended the courtesy of having their edits remain – we don't need to encourage their continued LTA socking. Blablubbs|talk 17:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I see... It's generally not a good idea to universally remove contributions that are otherwise constructive even if someone is banned, per WP:BANREVERT and the talkpage comment is actually helpful because it clarifies an earlier issue with someone thinking that article failed notability. I suggest we leave them as the editor is banned and cannot edit anymore anyway. Ok? Otherwise I'll have to add my own talkpage comment basically outlining the same information and that just sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

OrgoneBox, you are free to reinstate whatever you want, but I do want to point out that that I think the reverts are legitimate. People care about their edits sticking, not their accounts, which is why leaving their edits intact serves as an indirect encouragement. It's why WP:G5 is a thing, regardless of the quality of the pages in question. I personally don't think we should be extending any courtesy to an LTA that has repeatedly threatened, harassed, and attempted to dox people, but I admit that may be my personal involvement and strong feelings about this person clouding my judgement. Best, Blablubbs|talk 18:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Who is PanAndScan supposed to be anyway? I don't see any especially problematic edits in their edit history going back many years. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

OrgoneBox, not someone I want to discuss, sorry. But you are correct; the severely problematic edits were not made with this account. Blablubbs|talk 19:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A message from 77.96.139.8

YOUR MESSAGE There's a source in the footnotes. "Suicides in 2008." The article doesn't mention suicide though, I corrected it. Google it if you want further sources, the guy shot himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.139.8 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC) And the trouble with you people is, you never do any f--king work. Either you give orders or you hit the revert button. The worst thing about amending Wikipedia is having to deal with the snooty stuck-up lazy a--eholes who monitor it. I will NEVER amend Wikipedia again and that's final. You all go ---- yourselves now.

(Message moved and header added) Hi, thanks for your message – apologies, I missed that source. Please do re-add the information with an inline citation if you'd like. I'll go back to not doing any work now; I hope you have a great evening too. :) Blablubbs|talk 23:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Messages from The_Cleaning_Laddy

Hi. I had a conflict of interest message left on my talk page. Thank you for your time. I just wanted to declare that I have no conflict of interest in the subject of the article (or my edits), merely personal knowledge of the industry (I am retired though) and was contributing accordingly but I appreciate that perhaps the language could be more neutral or perhaps maybe some of the commercial elements left out so it reads less like a resume. What’s the best way to declare no conflict? Thank you in advance The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The Cleaning Laddy, can you explain how this is your own work, then? Blablubbs|talk 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs, Yes. I have a copy of the magazine that I subscribe to and have done for 4 years. I photographed the magazine on top of other magazines I own (yes, I’m an amateur still-life photographer too).. I posted it to Social Media. The publisher liked it and has asked if they could use it, I let them, totally unpaid. That is the extent of the interaction I have with them, via Instagram. Like I said, I have personal knowledge of the industry, I was in magazines in a previous life. I even credited the original cover owner Martin Perry. Although I took a picture of his picture, so while it is my own work (I took the picture), I credited the person who took the picture. In the picture! So I know all about credit and conflict of interest in publishing :) The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Cleaning Laddy, could you explain your relationship to MorganLoys (talk · contribs)? Thanks. Blablubbs|talk 19:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs Yes. We are partners in life. He’s sitting right across from me now. And if it’s relevant he was my Editor at a tourism industry B2B site we worked on together for 15 years. :) The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS: the idea was that he writes stuff and I edit them. But I’ve branched off. Hopefully we can be a team

@Blablubbs, Anyway apart from this presumed guilty til proven innocent line of questioning, what do you suggest I can do to make my articles and edits more credible? I believe I’m compliant to guidelines but you imply that I’m not?

The Cleaning Laddy, you are not "presumed guilty until proven innocent", but you are responsible for your actions on Wikipedia; the article you created is unambiguously promotional – it could have easily been speedily deleted as such. Given that both you and your partner are writing highly promotional content related to Out There, you'll have to forgive me for inquiring about your motivations for doing so. That's also the answer to your question: Don't write adverts. Blablubbs|talk 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(And please sign and indent your comments. Instructions can be found at the top of this page. Blablubbs|talk 22:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

Blablubbs Apologies, I am new and learning the ropes - as you can guess. I can assure you they are not intended to be adverts. My (our) motivation is to record valid, inclusive (esp LGBTQ+) publishing history into Wiki, which is lacking. And from what we see, mostly incorrect. We started with OutThere as it is most noteworthy right now, but plan to do others with content including imagery that we own. Anyway, I will re-write the article to ensure it is more factual and strip out what could be misconstrued as commercial content. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Gagan Gupta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gagan Gupta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ebs Akintade

Hello I notice my Wikipedia entry was deleted: Ebs Akintade. There weren’t links to the work I’ve done but I can add them as necessary. What can I do to re-establish the page or at least request for it to be I deleted? Ebuaki (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ebuaki, the article was deleted with unanimous consensus because there is insufficient independent coverage of you to justify an article. The only independent coverage I could find were highly negative stories in unreliable tabloids. I'm afraid there is almost no chance that the article about you will be restored. You may also want to see WP:Autobiography and WP:COI. Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

SPI

I'd like to get to the bottom of the ip editing of IHA but struggle to do that on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous. replylink doesn't work on that page and i get nothing but edit conflicts. Can we have a brief chat here where you point me to direct evidence that the IPs that we know for a fact were used by IHA (2601:2C0:C300:B7::/64, anything else?) before they created that account were used to edit anything related to Williamson? Vexations (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Vexations, I can certainly try :). There's both a behavioural and a technical aspect of this. The technical part is that on IPv6 ranges, it's common for individual people to remain on the same /64 subrange for extended periods of time. Querying WHOIS pages will give you far larger ranges, but many ISPs assign /64 or /60 blocks to individual users. All of the edits on that 64 exhibit the same distinct left-wing point of view and rather aggressive writing style, with the early edits often including serious BLP violations ([1][2][3][4][5][6] etc.). A day after the last such edit (all of which were clearly made by the same person) is made, an IP from the /64 opens a section on Talk:Proud Boys, again with a similarly aggressive style: [7]. The IP continues engaging in this discussion while simultaneously discovering GorillaWarfare's talk page – the conversation there finally leads to the IP editor creating the IHA account. The probability that, between that last BLP post and the opening of the proud boys discussion, the /64 was reassigned to a person sharing the same political convictions and editing in a very similar manner seems infinitesimal. I hope this makes sense. Blablubbs|talk 21:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

[8] was what I was looking for. Thanks. That doesn't show that IHA was socking though, does it? We're very sure that all of 2601:2c0:c300:b7::/64's contributions were made by the same editor, but they stopped editing as an IP on October 22, with one exception, [9] which confirms they're the same editor. Are we in agreement so far? Now where is the connection to another sockpuppet? All we have incontrovertible evidence for is that the same editor that edits as IHA started editing as an IP on 27 May 2020, here. Vexations (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: sorry, it seems like I misread your original comments at the SPI to mean that you aren't convinced that the entire /64 is IHA – my apologies for the overly lengthy explanation in that case. No, that part doesn't inherently show IHA was socking (and I wasn't trying to imply that in my original comment at SPI. As for where is the connection to another sockpuppet: There is no single piece of smoking gun evidence here, but there are lots of behavioural links; many of them are unconvincing on their own, but strongly suggest a connection when combined. Many of them were pointed out in the SPI, including in GeneralNotability's closing statement. Not all socks have strong overlap – many of them can only be connected to each other by showing a preponderance of similarities that makes the likelihood of two distinct individuals being at work rather small. Combined with the technical evidence involved here, that probability strikes me as rather small in IHAs case. Blablubbs|talk 16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What's done is done. I don't think I have much to contribute to this particular case, except express my concern over the mental health of a real person. That is something we should never forget. I -am- alarmed by what passes as evidence at SPI and what I think is misuse of SPIs to get rid of an opponent or a problematic editor. I regularly edit in difficult topic areas and it would be very easy to have me blocked as a sock with similar "evidence". I'm going to have to very carefully consider how to protect my self against such accusations and the resulting outing. I meet a lot of "how likely is THAT?" criteria, share a router with other editors, etc.. Closing this account, improving my security and starting over would just make me even more suspect of course. I have never socked, do not want to, never will, but remain vulnerable to such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I don't think the suggestion of malicious intent on the part of the filer – or those supporting this block – is a fair one. I for one have never interacted with IHA, I don't edit AMPOL (neither am I American); I do not have any personal, political, or editorial gripes with them. This case has been reviewed by two SPI clerks and two checkusers, as well as other users familiar with sockpuppetry; none of them have voiced objections to the block. As far as I can tell, most of those came from editors who aren't particularly active in sock-related areas but know IHA from elsewhere. Yes, sockpuppet investigations aren't an exact science: If we wanted 100% conclusive evidence that two accounts are run by the same person all the time, we would have to introduce extremely intrusive technical measures – and even then, some cases would still have to be decided through behavioural evaluation. Yes, individual pieces of evidence may be very far from conclusive on their own. And yes, it comes down to probability in some cases. But people don't push the block button at random – GeneralNotability has explicitly said that he went into his case review with the expectation that he would be unblocking IHA and didn't because a preponderance of the evidence suggests that IHA and SA are indeed related. I wish that this wasn't the evidentiary standard we have to use, but it simply is. And from working in this area quite extensively and knowing many of the people involved, I can tell you that the people involved at SPI take that responsibility very seriously.

I feel genuinely sorry if this has impacted IHA's mental health – no matter the facts of this case, I really do. You'll just have to believe me when I say that I am 100% convinced that no one involved in the outcome of this case took their actions out of a desire to hurt or "get rid of" IHA. Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Blablubbs!

Huge thanks to you, Blablubbs! Your clear instructions were easy to follow. Let me know how my requested edit looks (I put it on the talk page following directions from several resources you pointed me to) & if you think I could make any improvements. Sincere regards, Snyderlab|talk McGuire at Stanford Snyderlab (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi McGuire at Snyderlab, I'm happy if I could help and thanks for complying with our COI guidelines. There's something slightly off about the template you used; {{connected contributor}} is for declaring the connection itself and should go to the top of the talk page, using the correct parameters (see the documentation of the template). To request edits, you should use {{Request edit}} instead; I suggest using WP:ERW, which simplifies this. I'll try to have a look at the article talk page, but can't promise anything. On a sidenote, you can use four tildes (like this: ~~~~) to sign your posts. To ping someone, type {{u|Username goes here}} and sign your message in the same edit. I hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Blablubbs, I see where I may have put the connected contributor info too many times! I am figuring this out. I only wanted to add three words to the 'entrepreneur' section of Michael P. Snyder's page (with factual references), but I'm not sure if it matters at this point since most of the page was deleted after I added the three words.

McGuire at Stanford Snyderlab (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Draft:Michael P. Snyder draftified because it had no references. McGuire given some guidance at Teahouse about how to proceed. Briefly, the entire article needs a major revision to be about Snyder (with references) rather than lengthy descriptions of his research. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

SPI Clerking

Hi, I see you got added to the trainee list. Welcome aboard, glad to have more hands around to help! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the crew. The job comes with a free fez! Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, RoySmith and Cabayi, it's much appreciated! I look forward to working with you :). Blablubbs|talk 11:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with review

Collapsing Sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
user:Blablubbs Can you help me with reviewing a blocked account. It is of my friend who has been blocked due to some misunderstanding that he is a paid editor. Please feel free to read his explanation. 06August01 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Hi 06August01, could you clarify who this is about? Thanks. Blablubbs|talk 17:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Really sorry, User:Skhandelwal0608 06August01, it looks like your friend has an open unblock request – I won't be able to do anything here; he'll just have to wait until it's reviewed. Blablubbs|talk 17:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC) user:Blablubbs Yes I know but the request can be reviewed by any administrator, right 06August01 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC) @06August01: That is correct, but I am a) not an administrator and b) administrators review unblock requests as they find time – I doubt you will be able to expedite the process. Blablubbs|talk 17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC) user:Blablubbs Really sorry. Can you help me with the recent article I submitted. I want to tell you that it's a notable school in kolkata. You can also google it. I have failed to add references to it and request you to help me with it. Please. :) Also, this reference is also to be added in CK Birla as he is the lead trustee there. So should I do that?06August01 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Stacey Plaskett February 2021

Hello Blablubbs. All I did was move the sentence from another part of the article. It wasnt sourced in the upper part of the article. Her having kids fits better in the personal section than the early life section. Please compare the last 2 version. Thank You. 2600:1003:B00E:2E3B:F424:5A93:F733:6CE7 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it appears that the content mentioning that she has 5 children is already in the article, right above the point where you inserted it? Either way, I think the detail you added may be excessive, especially since it isn't cited inline. On a sidenote, please don't copy-paste warnings other people leave you to their talk pages; I have removed it from mine. Blablubbs|talk 00:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote me and are telling me dont write you? Then how do we dialog? Again I moved the info to where it better fits. It fits in personal better. 2600:1003:B00E:2E3B:F424:5A93:F733:6CE7 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

By keeping the conversation in one place. The content is already (and still) there: Plaskett is married to Jonathan Buckney Small, a community activist and former professional tennis player.[18] She has five children.[19]. Blablubbs|talk 00:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for helping with the SPI! Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 00:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Shadowrvn728, it's much appreciated! Blablubbs|talk 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Tim Palen

I just wanted to thank you for your work on Tim Palen. I knew it still had problems when I last edited it, even after all my work, but I also knew I needed to take a break from it and return with fresh eyes if I had any chance of doing it well myself, and yes, I hoped, in the meantime, that maybe other editors would step in, as at least two other editors had shown interest in improving the article last year. Needless to say, I was impressed and relieved when I finally had a chance to see your expert revision. This is why I love wikipedia, so again, my deepest thanks. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Malcom Gregory Scott: Happy to help, though I only did some very minor copyediting; Primefac is the one who did the actual overhaul. :) Blablubbs|talk 00:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your positivity and help!

	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) 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help, DrMel! Thanks for your work with Wikiblind and best of luck with your projects. Please feel free to pop back into IRC-help any time if there's something else we might be able to help with. :) Blablubbs|talk 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm SoyokoAnis. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jess Harnell, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SoyokoAnis 01:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis, I think you warned the wrong person here. Blablubbs|talk 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, I am so sorry! SoyokoAnis 05:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis, no worries – I've managed to mistakenly warn myself on occasion too. :) Blablubbs|talk 11:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol. SoyokoAnis 16:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding :Javid_Parsa

Hello ; hope you are doing good , i saw you posted a speedy deletion on my recent article Javid Parsa as this person is notable and meet all the criteria's of notability as per wiki page requirements ; i might have made some mistakes while creating this article, please i request you remove the deletion tag and make some changes in the article as per rules thank you; help me to save my contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

P has asked many editors to help her with her drafts. She has been advised to do her own work. David notMD (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

From the help channel

Hello Blablubbs, remember me? Can we have a nice conversation together someday? Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Regd Undisclosed paid added to Mckesson corporation wiki page

I see that you have added Undisclosed paid tag on this page McKesson Corporation on 02:27, 7 December 2020‎. Just wondering what made you to add this? Did you reach out to the suspected user? What are the course of action to get this corrected? Serijarla (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serijarla, what's your connection to McKesson? Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Blablubbs, I once worked for them as a contractor. Just to make sure you know I never received any monetary benefits with any of the edits I made until now. Thanks Serijarla (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Serijarla, If you were editing as part of your employment you were functionally a paid editor, even if not directed to edit. If this was the case, you should have disclosed this conflict in compliance with our terms of use (and federal law). Regardless, you have a Conflict of Interest that you need to disclose and you should not be editing the page directly. Could you clarify what you mean by "until now"? As for your question: I can not discuss this with the user in question because they are blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts in order to edit for pay without disclosure. The tag can be removed as soon as an uninvolved editor has reviewed the page and assessed that there are no outstanding issues. Blablubbs|talk 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, Just to clear on above statement, Editing the company's wiki page is not part of my job or employment. If you think I need to disclose regd my employment somewhere, please suggest where I should be doing that. Secondly "until now" means "Never". I have never received monetary benefits for doing any of the edits. When I see the information in wiki page is old and needs updating that is when I do changes as I'm close to the subject. One example being when the company moved it's headquarters to another state/ City and the page still showing old information, being a responsible wiki contributor, I have contributed towards those changes. Again I'm reiterating, I'm doing any edits only with my free will and no one is asked for. 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Article: Accenture (Feb 2021)

Hi BlaBlubbs,

Thank you for making us aware of this issue as I noticed that you placed a tag(Undisclosed paid|date=February 2021) on the Accenture article page on February 14th).

I am a novice on Wikipedia and am hoping you can help me identify what we need to do to remove this warning. Please note I work at Accenture and have identified as such on my user page. I am open to any suggestions/updates to follow relevant guidelines, as we are equally concerned with ensuring that the Accenture entry is objective and fair. Any advice is really appreciated.

Thanks in advance, Bohdithedog (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)BodhiTheDog

Hi @Bohdithedog; I have elaborated on the tag and the steps toward removal on the article's talk page – I would suggest you read through that and join the discussion there. Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs will review and appreciate the speedy response. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohdithedog (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A page you unreviewed has been copied to mainspace

Hi Blablubbs, the original author has circumvented the draft review process at Tulsi Bhagat by copying the draft content to mainspace. I have fixed the revision history of the article, but you may like to nominate the article for deletion if your concerns have not been addressed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ToBeFree, I'll have another look. Blablubbs|talk 22:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for letting me know about the copy-and-paste manouver thingee. EGL1234 06:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks EGL1234 – I'm glad if I could help :). Blablubbs|talk 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

M1

M1 does meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles for notability: 1)Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 2)Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. 3) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Biographygenius1, those criteria apply to the artists themselves, not to other people who are credited for a production. You'll also still have to show that they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. While we're at it, I have some questions:

• Is this your first account on Wikipedia?
• Do you have any connection to M1onthebeat?
• Do you have any connection to Lil Mussie?

Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 01:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC) (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Finastra / KLQ7

Hi Blablubbs

Thanks for looking at the review of the Finastra page so quickly. I actually work for Finastra, I'll update my user profile to say so. Apologies, this is only my second attempt to update Wiki and I'm not sure of the protocol.

I wanted to make sure that the Finastra page was up to date (adding the leadership team, updating the services etc - for example we have never actively sold 'legacy technology' so I changed it to banking software / banking technology) and complied to the guidelines so that we can get rid of the two warnings at the top.

I moved sections around (I actually looked at a few of our competitors' pages to ensure I was using the same layout) and added a couple of new citations/sources. And tried to remain neutral and factual.

I won't make any more edits until I hear back, and if I've got anything wrong, I'll check out all the guidelines more thoroughly.

Cheers Karen KLQ7 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Karen, thanks for your message. The tag wasn't based on your edits; it was placed in connection to the discovery of PR operations abusing multiple accounts to edit for pay without disclosure. Over the years, a number of users who appear to have a close connection to Finastra (very likely employees or people retained for marketing purposes) have made (sometimes promotional) edits to the page without disclosing their connection in violation of the the WMF terms of use (and potentially the law). To list just some of the immediately visible ones: [10][11][12][13][14][15] – in addition, there are the accounts linked to the sockpuppeteers I mentioned above. Hence, the page will require a thorough review before the tag is removed. Note that you should not be editing the page directly. Please use edit requests instead; there is a handy wizard to file those at WP:ERW. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 18:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for those cookies and for creating my account! I had a brownie laying around so here you go. Green Burger (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Green Burger – glad if I could help :). --Blablubbs|talk 13:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

removal of news source

I think you removed a reliable news source with content. I understand those were good-faith edits as you've mentioned "Someone released has no encyclopedic relevance" but you've removed two sources with that. If you agree I'll add them back in suitable place. Owlf 23:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Owlf, to clarify my actions there: I stumbled upon the article because you posted on Praxidicae's talk page. I removed the VICE part because endorsements by someone who does not appear to be part of VICE's editorial staff do not strike me as suitable for articles, and especially not in a lead. My line of thinking was similar for the mention of the number of songs he released – unless he's explicitly notable because of the number of songs, I don't see why this is information that we should include it in the artice; we don't list such statistics in other articles about musicians either. As a sidenote, I strongly recommend you read warning templates thoroughly before you use them; Praxidicae did not, as you claimed, remove content from Prakash Neupane without adequately explaining why; she left a rather thorough explanation on the article's talk page. Editorial disagreements should be handled by discussion, not by templating the regulars when they are clearly aware of policy. Best, Blablubbs|talk 23:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Vice appears to be the part of editorial staff because it also includes Vice Asian chie-editor and even vice staffs profile are there as contributor which you can see here [16] Owlf 23:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Owlf, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The specific author of the specific article about Prakash Neupane wrote a single article for VICE, which is certainly a concerning sign when it comes to the reliability of that piece – especially considering that it appears to be rather promotional. The fact that other VICE contributors may not be as concerning doesn't really dispute that point. Blablubbs|talk 23:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

But only Prakash Neupane is not there other artists like VTEN, Manas Ghale & [[Girish Khatiwada] etc also has been featured. That's not an protofolio/promotional news of Prakash Neupane only. And in Asia Times there are dozens of articles written by Arun Budhathoki those are editiorial too. So she needs to check articles clearly before removing and she removed national daily mainstream news sources like Nagarik Daily, Khasokhas, Nepal Daily etc Owlf 00:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Owlf, "other artists" aren't really relevant here – the question is the merit of the specific article about the specific person, and I really do fail to see it. Blablubbs|talk 00:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Than how someone can remove editorial article of Nagarik Daily , Nepal Daily and OS Nepal ? Even he's not Nepali wikipedian. Owlf 00:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Praxidicae's nationality plays into this; whether a source is reliable or not isn't determined by an editor's national origin, but by the source itself. Given that multiple editors have reverted you now, I'd suggest taking this content dispute to the article's talk page. Blablubbs|talk 00:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

questions on tag of the page

Dear Blablubbs;

Hi Blablubbs. I found the page "Yang Yang (scientist)" is tagged "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. (January 2021)". I want to edit this page now but I wonder if this tag can be removed. If it cannot be removed. Could you help delete the page so I could creat a new one since now the information on the page is few and poorly organized.

Best

Tt23323 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Tt23323. Before we dive into this, I have two quick questions: First: What is your connection to Yang Yang? And second: What is your connection to these accounts:

• Rzheng97 (talk · contribs)
• Ranran123123 (talk · contribs)
• Cow2333 (talk · contribs)
• Samuelhuang0805 (talk · contribs)

Best, Blablubbs|talk 09:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs. Thank you for your reply and questions. Actually I am Prof. Yang Yang's student. I have taken his class and be familiar with his experrience and background. I noticed his page lack many information so I want to edit it. I do not plan to promote him. He did not let me do so either. I just want to make my contributions to his page as I know some information about him. As for those accounts, I did not know them. But from the editing history, I can see they violated the rules of wiki badly. It is not good and I totally respect the administration and concept of wikepedia.

Best;

Tt23323 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Tt23323, has Yang Yang asked you to edit the article about him? Blablubbs|talk 15:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs. No, I want to edit the page only by my own will. I am not on behalf of anyone else. I will obey the policies of wiki.

Best

Tt23323 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A message from Nvasony

Hello Blablubbs,

You asked whether I am being directly or indirectly compensated for Wikipedia edits: I am not.

Thanks,

Nvasony (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nvasony, thanks for your reply. Do you have any other connection to Katalin Bogyay? Best, --Blablubbs|talk 15:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, We used to work together 21 years ago.

Nvasony (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A message from KellyLK2021

Hello Blablubbs,

You asked whether I am being directly or indirectly compensated for Wikipedia edits: I am, and was unaware of the disclosure requirements. I will provide the required disclosure.

Thanks, KellyLK2021 — Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi KellyLK2021, thanks for your message and disclosure. You may also want to have a look at our plain and simple COI guide; it lists best practices and rules for paid and otherwise connected editors. This includes the note that editing articles directly is strongly discouraged in such cases: If at all possible, please use edit requests – you can find a handy guide to creating them here. Please let me know if there is something I can help you with. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Maximus Inc.

Hi Blablubbs! Are you still interested to help with Maximus Inc? If so, I have a request on the Talk page about some small edits for the article's introduction. If you're not available, is there anywhere else you'd recommend I reach out to? Again, for transparency, I work for Maximus and have a conflict of interest, which is why I've not made the changes myself. Thank you in advance. HSMaximus (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi HSMaximus, I'll have a look. Best, Blablubbs|talk 16:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Beekeeping

Hi Blablubbs, an email was sent to permissions-en about the logo image. Hopefully it will be sufficient. --Beeloser (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beeloser, thanks for our message. I'm afraid I know nothing about the logo – my message was only about a passage that was copied from the BBKA's website. I have since removed the material and requested that it be hidden from the history. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok, I can understand what I did wrong. Will try to do better in the future. Apologies. --Beeloser (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Proxy checker script

Hello! A bit late, but here's the proxy checker script I promised. It's designed to run on toolforge, but you can comment out the 'is blocked' function if you want to run it elsewhere. I'm planning to convert this to a webservice for others to use, but you might find this useful in the meantime. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Firefly, much appreciated :). Blablubbs|talk 17:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

COIN discussion re: Accenture

Hello! I've posted a request to assistance addressing the UDP tag on the Accenture article here. The page asks users to notify those who are mentioned in the discussion, and while my post is not about you or your actions, I want to be sure to let you know about the discussion just in case.

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've gone through the edits, reverted the socks and removed the tags. Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Spam versus not spam

Hi Blablubbs,

First, thanks for helping to arrange the cleanup; I wouldn't have known how to begin. Second, I see that you're marking things as spam or not-spam; is this important to you? I was just marking them as checked (including: spam I removed, spam someone else removed, good edits, bad but non-spam edits I removed, ...), but I could make a finer classification if you cared (though it would slow me down). --JBL (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, happy to help. I don't mind at all if you just strike -- I'm insufficiently familiar with Math to make calls in some places; I'm marking them so that editors more familiar with the subject matter and the reliability of Wolfram sources can have another look. Blablubbs|talk 22:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! --JBL (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Blablubbs. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill – I'll try to make good use of it :). Best, Blablubbs|talk 13:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the barnstar!

I was not expecting that barnstar. Thank you so much for the kind words. If you really think I am making that big of a difference, it is an honor. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, I do. I particularly think the time and effort you put into mentorship is admirable. I hope real life calms down soon. Best, Blablubbs|talk 02:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Das Begräbnis

On 16 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Das Begräbnis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the first public reading of Wolfdietrich Schnurre's short story Das Begräbnis, part of the audience left the room in protest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Das Begräbnis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Das Begräbnis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for literature with a meaning! - It's also featured on Portal:Germany.

Precious

translate Begräbnis

Thank you for quality articles, several translated from German with narrative language skill, such as Das Begräbnis, Dachau camp trial and Hannibal (network), for fighting vandalism with a sense of humour, for welcoming users and articles, for "I do things here." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2557 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gerda! And thank you for all the great work you do around here; not just in articlespace, but also in making Wikipedia a kinder, more cheerful and overall better place. Beste Grüsse, Blablubbs|talk 07:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(blushing a bit) merci --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cell Danwydd

It's not a big deal, but I usually wait to see how a case resolves before moving it. Sometimes it turns out that the oldest account is found to be unrelated, and then you'll end up moving the case again. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, good point – thanks for the feedback :). Best, Blablubbs|talk 21:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome! (:

Thanks so much for the warm welcome. I'm very new to the whole wiki-editing process, so I imagine it'll take some time to figure out. Thanks for the help and advice! Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ayvind-Bjarnason, happy to help – it's always nice to have new editors on board. :) Please feel free to ping me or drop by here or at the teahouse if you have any questions. Blablubbs|talk 23:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

please do not delete or move my article "Web Influencer Culture"

please do not delete or move my article, I need to complete my course assignment, I will modify it after getting feedback and grading from the teacher, if you move my article repeatedly, I will not get the score. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyu Han (talk • contribs) 07:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Siyu Han, I'm really sorry, but I have to; it's now at Draft:Web Influencer Culture (2). @Robert McClenon, Ian (Wiki Ed), Aseleste and I have all told you that this draft isn't ready for mainspace. Your teacher can still give you feedback while the page is in draftspace, but it is not ready yet. To be very frank with you, draftification is the least aggressive option we have here; if this wasn't a WikiEd project, I would have likely nominated it for deletion by now, and I think it's not unlikely that someone would have done so if I hadn't draftified it again. If your teacher requires articles to be in mainspace in order for them to give feedback, then I think that's very problematic and should be discussed with the Wiki Ed team (though it looks like the date for publication is only in April?). I'm sorry if this is causing you stress, but please stop moving the page; doing so makes things worse. Please discuss this with everyone involved before taking any further steps. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 10:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Siyu Han: the article should not have to be in mainspace to get a grade. I'm not sure where the miscommunication arose, but let me get in touch with your instructor. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Siyu Han, Blablubbs, User:Ian (Wiki Ed) - We, the Wikipedia reviewers, sometimes deal with students who are taking a course and say that they have to get the article into article space to pass the course, or for some other reason their grade depends on the state of the article. Either the student has misunderstood, or the instructor is misusing Wikipedia (although probably in good faith by the instructor). It is important in such cases that we get in touch with the instructor and determine what the instructor has really told the students, and I thank User:Ian (Wiki Ed) for saying that they will do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon if anyone who's a student in one of the classes we support says that, it's either a misunderstanding on their part, or a misunderstanding on the instructor's part. (Although we stress the point that students should never be graded on what sticks, people forget.) You should always feel free to ping me in a case like that, and I can intervene with the instructor. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 07:49:53, 18 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Saxsxen

• Saxsxen (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Xenocs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello @Blablubbs, I have received a bot-delivered message saying that the draft page I have submitted will expire soon. Could you please help me or advise me on how to proceed to have the webpage I have submitted accepted ? Many thanks. Cheers. Saxsxen (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Saxsxen

Saxsxen (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Saxsxen. The timer for deletion will reset once someone edits the page again. To have it accepted, you will have to address what I noted in my review: There aren't enough citations to show that Xenocs meets our notability guideline for corporations yet. If you want to get the page published, you'll have to address that, and then resubmit it. Best, Blablubbs|talk 10:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs, many thanks for your answer! I have added some citations in my User Talk page. Do you think they comply with the notability guideline and that I can resubmit once I include them? Thanks again! Saxsxen (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Saxsxen

Hi Saxsxen, my apologies for the late reply. I missed your ping on your talk page somehow, so I'll reply to that too: Yes, you should disclose your conflict of interest here; you can find instructions for doing so at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose. As to your question here: Unfortunately, I think the sources you have linked there aren't quite enough – our notability guidelines for companies are rather strict. If it helps, here's a short analysis of the sources that are currently in the draft:

Source analysis

xenoxs.com is not independent of the company and can not contribute to establishing notability for the second xenoxs reference, the same issue applies The uscb reference also appears to be affiliated with the subject, and I wouldn't really call it independent coverage the IUCR reference is an announcement and not independent the physicsworld source does not cover the company itself in sufficient depth and amounts to a routine announcement

To demonstrate that Xenocs meets the notability guideline, you will have to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and I have to tell you that I don't think those sources currently contribute towards showing that it meets that standard. I would suggest that you review the notability guideline and consider if there is enough sourcing to justify spending more time and effort on the draft. I'm not saying this to discourage you from contributing, I'm saying it because I don't want you to invest time and effort into an article that won't be published no matter how good it is, simply because it doesn't meet the guideline at this time – sometimes, it's just too soon to have an article about a subject.

I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 22:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback!Blablubbs Cheers, Saxsxen (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Saxsxen

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about Das Begräbnis drew 6,030 page views (502 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sock

Dear Blablubbs,

Yesterday you reverted some disruptive edits by this and this IP with the message "sock on proxy". The person behind these edits has been systematically targeting edits by me (see their first 7 edits here), has been reverted by multiple editors, and has refused to engage in talk page discussion (e.g., here), so warning this person was surely called for. However, they are only a suspected sock, not a confirmed one (see here). Some more eyes on the evidence (the bullet points, perhaps better to ignore the rest) would certainly be welcome. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma. Well, I'm rather convinced that this is someone's sock, and they're being disruptive either way, but I'll defer to GeneralNotability's judgement as to whether this is Wikivani or not; since he's reviewed and closed the case without action and it has since been archived, there's nothing left to do here. For what it's worth, the unblocked proxy IP is probably going to be gone pretty soon as well. Best, Blablubbs|talk 14:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right of course, just thought to make sure it's clear, given actions such as this. That it is someone's sock seems highly probable, but since their actions are targeted at me, I'm rather interested in whose sock it might be. I hope you understand, and I'm sorry to have bothered you with this. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeritasVox

Hi. I let myself get goaded into another colloquy with VeritasVox, before I realized that we were doing exactly what you told us not to do. In an attempt to undo the damage, I've hatted the discussion. My apologies. I don;t plan to post there again. In fact, despite the fact that I filed the SPI, I'm going to remove it from my watchlist. Beyond My Ken (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, thanks for letting me know. It's probably a good idea to disengage – not just because this looks like it might turn out not to be the most fruitful dispute ;). As someone who watches SPI pretty closely, I can tell you that I don't think I've ever seen extended discussion meaningfully impact the outcome of a case; if anything, it delays action because it makes them very unappealing for CUs, admins and clerks to read through and evaluate. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Done also. All the best. VeritasVox (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

spihelper

Hello Blablubbs, I saw you use spihelper for managing SPI cases. I made this userbox for editors such as yourself who use spihelper. Jerm (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikitext	userbox	where used
{{User wikipedia/spihelper}}	This user manages sockpuppet investigations with spihelper.	linked pages

Thanks! I'll definitely keep this one in mind if I ever decide to add more userboxes. Good work on the SPI filing, by the way. Best, Blablubbs|talk 05:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NasirRanjhyWala

Sorry to keep adding additional socks after you've already marked this as closed... it seems as soon as their creations are deleted, a new sock appears a few hours later and recreates them. I've asked again for the pages to be salted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries Drm310 – and thanks for reporting; I've requested action for that one too. The spam brute forcing is getting a little annoying – if they keep going much longer, I'll ask for CU to see if an IP block is possible. Best, Blablubbs|talk 06:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RfA?

Now that you're doing more SPI clerking, it seems like it would be convenient if you had your own mop so you could do your own blocking. Would you mind if I nominated you for adminship? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Roy – that's a very kind offer and I feel honoured, but I have to decline – at least for now. I do think that having the tools would come in handy at some point in time, but I don't feel ready to run. I only started actively editing in June (the extended period of global awfulness that we've found ourselves in just means that I have a good amount of spare time on my hands :P), and I think that I'd have to get a little more experience in both in maintenance areas and in content creation before I can seriously consider an RfA. Thanks again and best wishes, Blablubbs|talk 14:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, OK, but when you change your mind, you know where to find me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, it really is much appreciated :). Blablubbs|talk 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspect me

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Blablubbs, Violating Wikipedia's rules is against the wiki community, I know this. I have joined this community after learning everything.Yes, I want to make Emiway Bantai, because I am a fan of them. Is it wrong to be a fan or not, and you can't even write and do this come under the purview of doubt? And I want to make Arishfa Khan and not Arshifa Khan - sandbox. You checked my sandbox but are still blaming me.I am not what you are thinking, and soon you will find out. Thank you 𝐃𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐑𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐧🇮🇳 15:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, please have a look at this? I am suspected as a Sockpuppet. Hope you can verify whether I'm a sock. Kindly please do it fast if you can. The false allegation disappoints! Sharath Abhivadyah Talk Page 01:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071

Should I add a report for Special:Contributions/Turgut Alp 500000; or should we just go straight to DENY and get blocks on sight without further bureaucracy? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I'm probably not the best person to ask about that specific master, but for active abuse in obvious LTA cases, AIV is usually fine in my opinion, especially for throwaways – cases at SPI can linger for extended periods of time, and looking over the archives, it seems like CU isn't able to do much more than give you confirmation. You can file, of course, but personally I probably wouldn't. Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, already at AIV anyway. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And now blocked by ToBeFree. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, hey. Well, that probably answers the question. I personally prefer WP:SPI for sockpuppet reports, still, as sockpuppetry reports at AIV are rarely as straightforward and easy to act on as the reporter believes them to be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Had I not linked the LTA page from AIV? Understand that reports might not be "as straightforward and easy to act on as the reporter believes them to be"; (and I probably shouldn't go into too much details about it, BEANS and whatnot, since this one has been at it for the past few months); but AIV is usually the fastest route (maybe a more effective solution for this would be warranted)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

LTA pages can also be linked to from SPI case pages. My main point is that AIV is only, and can remain only, a quick report venue because the reports there do not require a lot of investigation independently on who reviews them. LTAs may require some familiarity with the LTA. Relying purely on a user-created LTA description page when blocking a user isn't possible; I always have to look at the listed users' contributions, compare them and then make the decision. Even for obvious LTAs, this is often a more complicated process than blocking a regular vandal. For me, that's okay; I often take 10 or more minutes to deal with such cases. If every administrator does that, AIV gets backlogged quickly. Or rather, AIV gets backlogged because others don't want to take that time. Those who do monitor SPI, not AIV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent action on SPI case closing

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You may be interested in this. Krepson (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks, I reverted that as well. Blablubbs|talk 00:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Responding To Message

Hello Blablubbs. Thank you for your note and for bringing these issues to my attention. I am a consultant with JustAnswer, and I am working on a project to refresh public-facing content about JustAnswer’s business. In the case of JustAnswer’s Wikipedia page, my primary intent was to correct content that is no longer accurate due to JustAnswer changing its business model a few years ago.

I sincerely apologize for not adhering to the policies you referenced in your message. I am new to Wikipedia, and I was unaware of these specific requirements. Besides reviewing the policies and terms you provided, can you please advise me on the appropriate next steps?

Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully, Juspub (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Juspub

Hi Juspub; no worries, and thanks for being transparent. Am I correct in assuming that "Juspub" stands for "JustAnswer publicity" or similar? If that is the case, you will have to get renamed, since Wikipedia doesn't allow usernames implying shared use (see our username policy); you can apply for a rename at WP:CHUS. The second thing you will have to do is clearly disclose your connection on your userpage and ideally on the talk pages of articles you have a COI with. As a paid editor, you are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly; instead you should file edit requests; we have a handy wizard to do so here. You may also want to see our plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more information. I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs. Thank you for your reply and counsel. Per your direction, I have disclosed my connection to JustAnswer on my userpage and the talk page of the article. My username will not be shared, and it’s actually just a coincidence that it sounds like “JustAnswer Publicity”. I will research the “edit requests” and wizard you kindly provided and will adhere to this process to request any future changes to the article. I’ve sincerely tried to remain non-promotional, objective and fact-based (citing each comment while avoiding re-articulation from sourced articles). I'm hoping to have the “advertising” template / flag removed at the top of the article, which I will submit through “edit requests”. Before I do that, I'd greatly appreciate any additional feedback you might have on the objectivity of the article contents, and if anything specific stands out as promotional to you. Thanks again for all your time and help! Juspub (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Juspub

Juspub, happy to help. To be frank with you, the content you've added is highly promotional; it reads, essentially, like a re-hashed PR press release or product catalogue, beginning with the first sentence is an online question and answer site that connects customers with experts across 700 categories including tech support, legal, mechanic, home improvement, veterinary, medical and more, 24 hours a day is not encyclopaedic content. Most of the content on the page appears to be aimed at making JustAnswer look good to potential customers – and that's not really what we're for. The entire lead (which is too long – content should be split into sections and the lead should be a short summary of those) is essentially "this is what the company has to say about its own product", even if secondary sources are used. The article will need a thorough rewrite, I'm afraid. Best, Blablubbs|talk 23:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Move

Hello again! In case you have notifications disabled, I wanted to let you know I've replied here and updated the draft based on your feedback. Do you have a moment to take another look? Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere, sorry for the delay :). Blablubbs|talk 16:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've responded there and hope you continue discussion as needed at Talk:Move_(company)#Proposed_updates. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Blablubbs. I am still hoping you might be able to revisit this discussion. If you are not interested, I will try to seek assistance elsewhere. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Maximus Inc.

Hi Blablubbs! Thank you again for replying to my introduction request. I am not sure if you saw, I have also left a reply to the discussion you started about "Due weight" in the article. Both you and Z1720 raised some very interesting points. I think that a draft that I have prepared might help with addressing some of the key issues. Were you able to take a look at that yet? Also, I have a query about the Maximus logo. I left a message on the logo file talk page but have not received any response, do you happen to know anything about logo file licensing? Thank you in advance. HSMaximus (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi HSMaximus, sorry for the late reply. I haven't gotten to the page yet, and I can't promise that I will; for the most part, I've been fairly busy with other things recently. As for the logo: I'm very far from an expert in copyright, but I think the bot-placed tag there is because the image is both tagged as being in the public domain, and as a non-free file, and those things conflict with each other. I'm not a lawyer, so proceed at your own risk, but my personal assumption is that the image is probably indeed in the public domain because it does not cross the threshold of originality, and is hence ok to upload as a high-res file or upload to commons. You may want to see WP:PDFONT and c:COM:TOO United States about that. Best, Blablubbs|talk 16:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Further concerns

I think you may not realize the possibility of outing in what you have been discussing at the VP. . Please take further concerns to a suitable forum, such as arbcom. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

DGG, to be quite honest, I'm not entirely sure what the outing concern with regard to that specific question is; my question was whether it is okay to participate in discussions internal to the project with two undisclosed accounts as long as there's no overlap?, which is implied by your action and does not relate to any specific individual. My understanding of policy was that undisclosed alternative accounts were not to be used in discussions internal to the project in general – I'm not bothered if that isn't the case, but it would be relevant to my work as an SPI clerk if I am misinterpreting policy there. Best, Blablubbs|talk 23:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It seem obvious to me that further discussion on this line will lead to revealing the identity of the other account. I I do not consider this suitable for discussion on a page devoted to purely technical matters. As you're aware from SPI , there's an inherent tension between the objectives of privacy and deal with puppetry. I am not sure myself how to proceed, which is why I have listed it on the checkuser list for further advice. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

DGG, I do think there's some questions here which need clarifying, but I will respect your request to not continue this on-wiki. I have sent an email to User:Arbitration Committee outlining my questions. I hope they will provide some public clarity to the ambiguity in WP:ILLEGIT which we all are struggling with. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

DGG, I'm going to keep this intentionally vague, but Sam has repeatedly violated WP:SOCK in the past by editing the same articles both with his alt (which is not hard to find) and as an IP, in most cases without any sort of adequate disclosure. The Sam at Megaputer account itself also has overlap with both the other named account and the IP. That's a textbook violation of WP:ILLEGIT. Given that Sam has e.g. expressed interest in obtaining the sensitive researcher user right, his alt's conduct is absolutely relevant to the Sam at Megaputer account, and I think it's a stretch to say that there isn't at the very least evasion of scrutiny going on here. Blablubbs|talk 17:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, Care to send the violations off to ArbCom by email? That would be most helpful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek will do, likely tomorrow. :) Blablubbs|talk 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have asked arb com again, and they suggest I should tell you it is being discussed by them, and you should write to them if you have anything you wish to add about this. There's nothing further I can do here. DGG ( talk ) 11:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Tagging on Louisehynes11

It looks like you have tagged the above user as blocked indefinitely, but they were only blocked for 31 hours. You may want to fix that. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. :) Blablubbs|talk 11:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert out my edits?

Hi. I edited the sweepstake wikipedia page. Forgive me, I'm new to this, but it looks like you just deleted all my work? Why? Of course, I'm happy to discuss and explain (and defend if necessary) my work. Thank you...

Thejokethief (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thejokethief. Do you have any connection to goldenheartsgames.com? Blablubbs|talk 18:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes! I am cofounder and CEO of Golden Hearts Games. That's why I have this knowledge and want it to be included in relevant Wikipedia pages. Is that OK? Thejokethief (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thejokethief: it is not, I'm afraid. You have a strong conflict of interest and you should not be editing any pages related to your company, at least not directly. In the two substantial edits you have made, you inserted links to Goldenhearts 3 and 6 times, respectively. Wikipedia is not a platform for search engine optimisation, and external links should not be placed in articles. Please do not continue to insert backlinks to your website; doing so will likely result in your being blocked from editing. Please review our policies on paid editing, conflicts of interest and promotion thoroughly before making any further edits. Blablubbs|talk 15:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah. OK, apologies, I did not consider that and obviously did not review those policies before making my edits. Of course, I will not do this again. Still, we think the business model we are bringing to market is worth Wikipedia's notice. And some of our competitors in this space are linked to from Wikipedia. What if any process might you recommend for us to work with Wikipedia? Thank you.

Thejokethief (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thejokethief Wikipedia isn't a business directory and we generally discourage individuals from writing about their own companies - see the introduction to WP:Conflict of interest. If your business is significant enough to merit encyclopedic coverage, someone without a connection to the subject will write about it eventually. The existence of other inappropriate content on Wikipedia does not mean that such content is encouraged, merely that no one has gotten around to removing it yet. Spicy (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question

Hi Blablubbs. I found your name on the list of sockpuppet investigations clerks. I am convinced that the editor Igorikrasti is a sockpuppet of the recently blocked editor Deltagammaz, as the editing patterns of the two accounts seem similar to me, and specifically, both accounts have made numerous edits to Chamath Palihapitiya, mostly content that reflects negatively on the subject. But because I work for Chamath's company Social Capital (as I've disclosed), I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to file a sockpuppet investigation in this case. Do you think you could take a quick look at the situation? Thank you, CarmenCatSC (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up CarmenCatSC, I'll take a look as soon as I find time. Blablubbs|talk 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long, this quacked rather intensely. Talked to a steward, account now globally locked, both tagged. This traces back to an older SPI, but I'd have to look into that connection more (there's some weirdness involved) to be able to say more. Blablubbs|talk 23:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice work

I'd been following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko and it finally came to resolution and wanted to thank for your time and effort rooting them out. Extortion could threaten the entire project left unchecked. -- GreenC 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, GreenC – though much of the credit here has to go to MarioGom. I'm glad the whole saga seems to be coming to an end. Blablubbs|talk 08:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well thank you also MarioGom. This gang will likely continue but now we know them a little better. -- GreenC 15:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, I am a programmer and can do some type of work if you foresee a way to automate reports that would help you. No guarantees I can do the work but can consider ideas that are not too involved. Given the lack of people willing and skilled to track bad actors on the Internet (not just Wikipedia) automation is a way to help leverage detection. -- GreenC 15:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the SPI case

Hi Blablubbs, I have replied to your query at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dipsikharay25. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Handled, thanks. Blablubbs|talk 11:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A message from Aladdin.digi

Hey buddy thank you so much for creating my account. May I get some assist? Aladdin.digi (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin.digi. What can I help you with? Blablubbs|talk 10:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You rock!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Not only for disentangling a complex SPI, but for being willing to clerk SPIs at all, and for taking this one on while under the scrutiny of training Fiddle Faddle 18:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle 18:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Fiddle Faddle, I'm glad I could help – thanks for noticing and reporting. :) Blablubbs|talk 20:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There were loads of folk talking about it, but no-one grasped the nettle, so I did, albeit imperfectly Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, Now if we could just convince him to get his own mop.... -- RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith Perhaps, and yet there is no true need for one in the role. RFA nowadays is truly awful. I cannot see why anyone would submit themselves to it Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both – maybe some day. :) Blablubbs|talk 23:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think adminship is a difficult choice. I have made that choice and I do not ever see myself altering it. Fiddle Faddle 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for closing a Sockpuppetry investigation on me

I really appreciate it that you closed the SPI on me, because I love editing TV related stuff. LooneyTraceYT No Pets allowed • contribs 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@LooneyTraceYT: Glad if I could help. Having looked over your edits in the course of the investigation, I do want to give you some unsolicited advice: Please take care to not rush into things on Wikipedia, especially when it concerns administrative areas. For example, you should not be adding block notices as a non-admin, as you did here. Similarly, it isn't necessary to report username violations for users who registered years ago and never edited. Please also take care to not bite the newcomers; for example, this user uses what's called a dynamic IP address. They aren't deliberately using multiple IP addresses, that's just the way their computer works. Note also that not providing an edit summary is not, on its own, a reason to revert an edit ([17][18][19]). When reverting people, keep in mind that they are likely acting with good intentions, regardless of whether their edits are suboptimal or not, and remember to always explain your reverts clearly; for example, I'm not sure what you meant when you reverted these two edits [20][21] as "unreliable". I know you mean well, but Wikipedia can be a confusing place and it's important to take it slow. I take the approach that whenever I'm unsure about something, I try to ask somebody who might know what to do; if you ever need help or have any questions, you could ask at the teahouse, or reach out to me on my talk page. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I am a real girl after all!

Thanks for getting an account set up for me. I know it seems silly, but there was a small tidbit of information I found tremendously helpful and I wanted to include it in the article about a certain fish. Normally, I would let it go as it wasn't a very pressing issue, but the thought occurred to me that I may wish to edit something in the future. I would have to go through the process then, so I may as well bite the bullet and take care of it now. Account created. Article edited. User happy. Thank you. NicevilleJenn (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@NicevilleJenn: Happy to help! I don't think that's silly at all – people adding small tidbits of helpful information is what this place runs on. :) Thanks for your contribution; I hope you stick around. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Re:Suspected Sockpuppets

Good day Blablubbs! I dropped by to ask something from you. Well, the block placed on me was recently lifted as I have proven that Ajhenson21 and Gardo Versace 16 are not associated with my accounts. That being said, can I ask you to remove all tags from these accounts stating that they are suspected sockpuppets of mine or are my sockpuppets since it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they are not related to me.

I would likewise want to bring to your attention Albe23413 and his long list of sockpuppets as I suspect the sockpuppets that were suspected to have been connected to me is actually his sockpuppets. All the hallmarks of his editing behavior are present in the accounts that were linked to me.

Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And can the SPI be merged back into Ajhenson21? aeschyIus (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Well if you're going to merge the SPIs, you might as well merge it with this one. Of the 10 accounts listed as a sockpuppet of Albe23413, I reported about 60% o them to either Bbb23 or NinjaRobotPirate. So when his next sockpuppet account Ajhenson21 was blocked, he thought it was me that reported him that's why I was the subject of attacks from this account, even trying to run me out of wikipedia as can be seen here. What's both funny and concerning there is that the user wanted to implicate me as a sockppupet of Ajhenson21, but would later turnout to be a sock itself. As can be gleaned from my history, I have never interacted with Ajhenson21 and/or Jricaplaza and yet I was being attacked. That's why the suspicion that the accounts related to Ajhenson21 are sockpuppets of Albe23413 - that Ajhenson21 himself is not a sockmaster but is a mere sockpuppet of Albe23413. Nobody has more axe to grind with me more than Albe23413 and his army of socks, the last time he was blocked around June or July, it was particularly gruesome that hurled cuss words at me. Users Superastig and the ever reliable NinjaRobotPirate would attest to the fact that Albe23413 hold major beef against me which would be the motivation against this smear campaign against me. Note too, that the editing patterns between them are the same - All interested in Philippine TV shows pages, especially Ang Probinsyano, as well as pages relating to typhoons. I hope that a CU can be run between Ajhenson21 and Albe23413 in order to confirm my suspicion and to narrow down the real culprit so we can focus our efforts on a more defined enemy. Gardo Versace (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gardo Versace – my apologies that this happened to you. I can't do the merging myself – @Girth Summit: you mentioned that you'd tidy up the SPI – anything I can help with? Best, Blablubbs|talk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I pinged GeneralNotability and L235 to ask for their assistance with the SPI tidy-up (see my talk). It's not a straightforward move from GV to Ajhenson21 though, because there was a 2017 case against GV that needs to be retained - I thought that I would probably make a mess if I tried to sort it out solo, do you know what needs to be done?

Gardo Versace - once the SPI is tidied up, all the tags will be changed to reflect the new case. Please don't change/remove them just yet. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I may be wrong about all of this, but I think splitting histories isn't possible; so I'm assuming the way to do this would be to merge Ajhenson into Albe23413 (delete Albe, move on Ajhenson over it top, restore the old revisions), and then perform a cut-and-paste move that splits the Versace SPI into its own case again (while providing attribution via the edit summary). Blablubbs|talk 15:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

Hey, given the recent trolling, would you like me to semi-protect your user page for a few days? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks, but I think I'm good for now – I'd prefer keeping it open so that new users who come across me via ACC welcomes can get in touch. I might take you up on the offer if it keeps going, though :). Blablubbs|talk 18:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Another possible sock

There is an user @Ndusskjraidmsjai: editing on Iraqi related articles. See other users @Hpskawyocbauddkmajakriao: and @Awawpshdmxn:. Beshogur (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I'm really not at all certain pinging suspected socks is the most intelligent thing you'll have done today. Nick (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Beshogur, good catch; that's them, I'll try to find a steward. I do concur with Nick though; when reporting people for socking, especially LTAs, use something like {{noping}} instead of notifying them directly. Best, Blablubbs|talk 22:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And locked :). Blablubbs|talk 22:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries Beshogur, and happy to help. :) Blablubbs|talk 23:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

That was a bit of fun while I was away. Thank you very much for caring about the integrity of these articles! --10mmsocket (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket, glad if I could help :). I'm not particularly involved in the topic area though, I came across it while clerking an SPI case – you may want to report future socks there as they pop up; I think we might have to play Whac-A-Mole for a bit. Blablubbs|talk 12:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There might be another sock b.t.w. User:User1-GFP. Should I add it to the original report? --10mmsocket (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Another new sock? FPOS05 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) --10mmsocket (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

10mmsocket, yep, will add to the case, thanks. Blablubbs|talk 16:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Question...

Hi Blablubbs! How are you doing on this fine day? I'm still reverting vandalism, and I'm enjoying myself very much! How's the weather in your part of the world? Here in Queensland, Australia, it has been pouring with rain for two days straight! Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for your page on German sources. It was quite helpful. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Scorpions13256! I'm glad you found it helpful (and this reminds me to finally expand it some more). :) Best, --Blablubbs|talk 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What would your opinion be on Augsburger Allgemeine? I am leaning towards yes, but it is hard for me to investigate non-English websites. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Scorpions13256, sorry for the delayed response. I'm unfortunately not too familiar with the publication, but from a quick read I'd consider that generally reliable. -- Blablubbs|talk 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought it was reliable because it seemed like a broadsheet. There was this magazine that I was going to ask you about, but I was sold after I found out they employed 40 fact-checkers. Because of your page on sourcing, an article I created will likely be featured on the front page around May 7, or the 20th anniversary of an event I wrote about. Thanks again! Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

editing a redirect

I used the tool on the main WP:SPI page, and I can see what went wrong: I didn't type the name with a capital M. This might be something that needs to get fixed, as I can't imagine I'm the first (or last) person to do this. I'm going to dig into the tool, see what I can do.

In the meantime: thanks for fixing that for me. I had no idea I'd even done it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, happy to help, and agreed with the tool part – it would be great if you find a fix (this also makes me wonder if the Twinkle sock reporting option fixes caps automatically). Good catch by the way, I've endorsed the check. Best, Blablubbs|talk 13:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I dug down to the code that runs the tool and found the documentation behind it, and unfortunately, there's no easy fix. The Extension:Inputbox tool doesn't have robust validation, and doesn't have any method of honoring redirects, so it needs to be fixed on the server side. I'm thinking this might be worth bringing up on WP:VPT, which I intend to do shortly.

Also, I'm not familiar with the twinkle sock reporting tool, but if it has a text input box, then it almost certainly has this same problem.

Finally, I don't think we've interacted before, and it's been a pleasure to meet you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Thanks for looking. I'm not sure how often this happens (and for new filings where no case exists under the correct name, a simple page move does the trick), but if it is a problem and a "real" technical fix isn't feasible, an edit filter that looks for creations of SPI subpages that start with non-capital letters and then warns or disallows might be an interim solution. If you use Twinkle, the reporting menu is at TW->ARV->Select "sockpuppet" or "sockpuppeteer" in the dropdown menu; new reports automatically insert the master name and I assume Twinkle aborts if you report sockpuppets of a nonexistent master, so this would probably only be an issue in edge cases.

The pleasure is all mine – and thanks for writing NONAZIS, it's probably my favourite piece of sort-of-policy on Wikipedia. Best, Blablubbs|talk 14:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfair judgment

My reason for unblock request was accepted by a reviewer. They were convicing .You just stressed on the similarity of our ideas, while Mz7 focused on the writing style of me and Ghazaalch. I really appriciate him for his carful investigation. I wonder if you update the SPI and explaine that I and Ghazaalch are not same users.Saff V. (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Saff V. it was a lapse in judgement, and I profusely apologise for it. Mz7 (who was the blocking admin) and I reviewed the case together and decided that it was not a good block. I'm sorry this happened to you, but that said, I can't update the case because archives are not to be edited; the fact that you're not blocked should make it clear that you were not in fact the same user. Again, my apologies. Best, Blablubbs|talk 13:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. it is important that you find out the conclusion needs to be reviewed again. Anyway The lapse mad me deeply upset because i was blocked just for trivial evidences. Is it possible to you (as a clerk for SP report ) leave a massage about the lapse on my talk page. I am worried that if you don't leave your comment, in the future it might get me into trouble.Saff V. (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I technically can, but I think the unblock message should be sufficient, no? Blablubbs|talk 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Saff V.: It's a little nonstandard, but I've submitted this change to the SPI archive. I hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

About the recent case

Hello Blablubbs, wanted to ask what happened to the case, is it closed now? I didn't quite understand your comment, could you please explain what's going to happen with the case? For the record, I didn't say Creffel=Curious, I think it's just proxy account or Creffel lending him the account. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni – I should have probably made that clearer. I've amended my comment there, see [22]. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and being patient with the situation, as I said I'm still inexperienced in opening reports. I found an interesting similarity in both Creffel and CuriousGolden's user pages. Before the sockpuppetry tags being added Curious had this quote in his talk page "“It is assumed that the skeptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of skepticism”, 1. Creffel similarly has the alike userbox "this user is a skeptic" 2. It's hard for me to think that Creffel and Curious don't know each other, probably off wiki too. They clearly interacted on wiki, they edit virtually on same pages sharing same POV, and Creffel seems to know the post(s) about Curious outside wiki, and was "ready" for a raid from reddit. Also, where exactly should I reinstate further report (they deleted my question to you so I'm asking here 3)?

Your input will be appreciated, thanks again for being patient and explaining everything. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: So, here's my line of thinking:

I find it unlikely that this is Golden because Golden's attempts at socking were somewhat amateurish and I don't believe he created a sleeper 3 months beforehand (I was the person who processed the initial case), Creffel's writing is consistent throughout and it's likely that they would have come up in the CU check. This leaves the possibility of proxying, but policy is somewhat complicated there. WP:PROXYING says:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying)'unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits [...] New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. (emphasis mine).

Creffel is not a new account, it probably can be argued that the changes are productive (I genuinely don't know and this is a highly contentious area) and the raid thing is at least a credible assertion of an independent motivation; this essentially means that I can only evaluate the meatpuppetry suspicion if I engage in two things that SPI is not suited for: a) Making a call about whether those changes were "good" and b) whether there was off-wiki coordination between Golden and Creffel, which inherently means that we're going to be debating evidence that is covered by WP:OUTING. Hence my deferral to the Checkuser queue; I would suggest waiting for a reply from them and handling the remaining sockpuppetry concerns via that route. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Genuine curiosity

Hello Blablubbs. Apologies if this is a little unexpected and forward, but I was just genuinely curious as to why you believe I know Golden personally? Of course, I am not fully expecting you to be open about this, but in case you are maybe you could share? I mean sure I think me and Golden have certain POV similarities. It's just I genuinely don't know the guy, but I find it interesting why it seems like I know him. - Creffel (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Creffel: I was merely referring to the fact that you had interacted with each other before on-wiki; whether you are acquainted elsewhere, I haven't the slightest idea, sorry if my wording wasn't clear there. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10