Jump to content

User talk:rsjaffe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For helping deal with a nasty case of racist, anti-semitic vandalism. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, very ugly. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
y 64.226.63.242 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitai Hershkovits page

[edit]

Hi, I will appreciate your answer about copyright violation in my talk page--Yossipik (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Will appreciate your notes in my talk page--Yossipik — Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

revdel on declined drafts

[edit]

Hi, its good to see someone else working on revdels. If you deal with a draft that has been declined as a copyvio can you please remember to change the decline parameter in {{AFC submission}} from cv to cv-c or else the page stays in Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing that but must have missed one. Could you point me to the one I missed so I can refresh my memory and figure out what happened? Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Stanley C. Allyn - this one. No big deal in missing the odd one. Nthep (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Issues

[edit]

Hi,

I'm unsure of whether issues with off-site canvassing should go to the AN or ANI, but there has been active attempts to canvass off-site to the 15.ai AfD. The AfD was posted on 4chan's /mlp/ board the day it went up. I do not know if this is something I should bring to AN or ANI or neither?

Any help is appreciated, Thanks Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15.ai (2nd nomination), and it already has a notice on there about canvassing, which is probably all that needs to be done.
You'd only do something more if you believe action needs to be taken against a user.
The problem with reporting a User to AN/I is that it includes off-wiki information (WP:OUTING), so you cannot publicly post that information, which means that any AN/I discussion remains "hypothetical" without specific facts and doesn't normally fix the issue reported. In extraordinary situations you could think about reporting via confidential means (email) to arb committee if you think it is very serious and action needs to be taken against a Wikipedia user, but this sort of thing normally doesn't get raised to that level. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I wasn't sure whether it should or shouldn't be brought to the AN/ANI after someone had asked me to notify them if it ended up in AN/ANI over the off-site stuff, so figured I'd just ask an admin. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could also ask another admin if you want. I'm pretty new at this.
But, in general, I'd focus on on-wiki behavior. And recognize that the person closing the AfD will know about the canvassing, given the notice on the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person being accused by Brocade of being canvassed/sockpuppeted. What's conveniently interesting is that she left out the fact that the alleged 4chan post that started the off-wiki canvassing had a total of two posts on it, neither in support of keeping the article. [1] I certainly never saw this post when I decided to post my opinion, as I don't even use 4chan. I found this very link from her own talk page. Tacotron2 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being accused of anything. I included your name in an active SPI investigation because of the timing of your return. Again, I tagged you as an SPA because a majority of your major edits were 15.ai related and 15.ai adjacent and your name is literally the technology which inspired 15.ai. This conversation has little and else to do with you and more to do with the literal proxy IP Address that commented, as well as other strange activity. Whatever happens with you is wholly up to the SPI Investigation. Secondly, it doesn't matter how many posts the thread had, it shows that someone is attempting to canvass and considering that a known multi-account abuser confessed to the existence of a Discord server filled with individuals whom they have discussed 15.ai with in the past, and who as recently as one or two weeks ago was actively abusing another new account at 15.ai to disrupt consensus building, it is beyond obvious that there is off-site disruption. This is beyond exhausting. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This conversation has little and else to do with you" You created a literal investigation against me and got an admin to look into it. Your behavior, not just toward me, is concerning, especially with the newfound evidence I posted in that investigation page. Tacotron2 (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you: Do not litigate anything about the sockpuppet investigation here. This is counterproductive. I am only providing advice about managing canvassing during an AfD.
To summarize: being canvassed is not a big deal, and is just about how the !vote is assessed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final Question - In regards to the AfD, should I respond to their accusations against me at AfD or continue ignoring them? [2] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is already veering away from the merits of the article under review. You both have expressed your views already. That's enough for now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough. The annotation on your !vote is only there to help the closer assess the !vote, and your comments after that annotation should be sufficient to properly inform the closer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tacotron2 attempted WP:VOTESTACK. Thank you. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 15:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your great contributions to improve this project. Maliner (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter

Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.

Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June.

Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here.

Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.

To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle_gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

ITA Award for Best Actress in a Drama - Popular

[edit]

Please don't delete move redirects as WP:G7 without checking that the moved page (the target of the redirect) was never edited by anyone else – nor without checking for incoming redirects that need to be fixed. Same issue as here. This caused every redirect to the article now at ITA Award for Best Actress Popular Drama to become broken (at which point the broken redirects tend to get deleted by another admin not checking whether they should be fixed). SilverLocust 💬 04:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! Thanks. Thought I had figured that issue out. I had been going very slowly on the redirects, but obviously didn’t internalize the whole message. Looks like you reverted the move that left the redirect. Is that what you did? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ITA Award for Best Actress in a Drama - Popular was a redlink when I left the message, but then I moved it back (making this message less clear). Thanks, SilverLocust 💬 05:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sock?

[edit]

You just blocked Jacob Sartonius. Looks like EditingWhileLoggedOut (talk · contribs) is the same person. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet?

[edit]

I think that User:EditingWhileLoggedOut has the same behaviour as User:Jacob_Sartonius which you have just blocked Special:Contributions/EditingWhileLoggedOut Greensun17 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revoked edit

[edit]

Hey Rsjaffe,

I believe you have revoked my edit to a soccer player’s page. The statement I added is a widely accepted idea in the game at the minute, with lots of sources which I can attest to. Could I kindly ask why this was noted as vandalism? Swagmaster547 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a hoax page you created on your User Page, which had nothing to do with soccer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Yfd456

[edit]

I think we've made a bit of a mess here. This user created article-like content on their userpage, which I draftified to Draft:Parasocial relationship. Then they recreated the same userpage content, which you draftified to Draft:Parasocial Relationships. Now they have also created User:Yfd456/sandbox with the same content. Three places with the same thing... I think we need to nuke two of them so that only one remains. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great. I can remove the drafts and leave the sandbox, since that's the one they created. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hope their stay in their lane and stop posting it on the userpage... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

[edit]

Hi Rsjaffe. The author for the user page marked under CSD wants the page deleted, see WP:Teahouse#Deleting my edits. They doesn't know how to, so I did it for them. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that discussion, but I don’t see where the author responded to your question. Leaving the sandbox as is would make it easier for a novice editor to find it, so I’m reluctant to delete it (as were you) without clear instructions from them, in which case it’d be a U1 CSD. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author changed their name (Taymallah Belkadri ---> Salah Talah).
I asked whether they wanted their two pages to be deleted (Can you please elaborate on what you're asking for? Do you wish to delete these two pages you've created (this and that) or are you asking for something else?),
and they responded saying they would want them deleted (The first one is correct @TheWikiToby. I wanna delete those pages.) TheWikiToby (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh! OK. Didn't see the name change. Will delete. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! TheWikiToby (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for blocking the vandal who harassed me! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies

[edit]

Hey, good to see you putting your shiny new mop to use. When you block proxies (including VPNs and similar), make sure you tick the box that says "block logged in users on this IP address". :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info. Not much experience with proxies. Did you fix the blocks? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I checked and fixed it, thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. I came across this series of edits where you removed a red link following R2 deletion of a redirect to an article that had been draftified. I'd like to offer a reminder that such red links should only be removed when they point to non-notable topics for which proper articles are unlikely to ever be created. Also, in navboxes, it's extremely rare, if at all, that a red linked item should simply be unlinked. Either the inclusion is appropriate, in which case it should be left as a link, or it is not, in which case the entire entry should be removed.

In this specific case, the link would have needed updating anyway, as it was later re-created as a redirect to a different topic. But I'm also raising the issue more generally. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

[edit]

Just because an account has been compromised does not mean you should be linking to the page that posted their password in the block summary. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that, since the account would be globally locked, that the password would no longer be of any use and only show evidence for my actions. Will omit next time. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete

[edit]

Season's Greetings

[edit]

Hello Rsjaffe: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, user-Rsjaffe

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

User:I kidnap...

[edit]

Hi--you just beat me to blocking it. With such user names, I don't block from the talk page but I go directly to the block function and revoke TPA, so we won't have a user talk page with that awful name (I'm going to delete that page right now). Similar with the actual edit--if you roll it back, the user name shows up in the edit summary (I'm going to revdelete that, and their user name). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the tip. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Chodes shows they've been at it before, and that revdelete has been used a number of times. I semi-protected the article. Right now I'm running some other checks--this is a returning customer. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I rev-del'd one more edit text that had already had the user name revdel'd. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the Speedy Deletion of the Page "الهكر العربي - Arab Hacking"

[edit]

T Arab hacking (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the Speedy Deletion of the Page "الهكر العربي - Arab Hacking"

[edit]

I would like to submit an objection to the nomination for the speedy deletion of the user page "الهكر العربي - Arab Hacking" according to section G11 of the speedy deletion criteria. I believe there has been a misunderstanding in this case.

The page that was created is not promotional in any way. The information included is accurate and relates to my activities and technical projects that I share in the fields of ethical hacking and cybersecurity. The page was created to document this area of knowledge and contribute to raising technical and community awareness, not for personal or commercial promotion.

The use of the name "الهكر العربي - Arab Hacking" is not intended for self-promotion or for any commercial activity, but is simply the account name I use on various platforms to represent my tech channel that provides educational content in the fields of technology and cybersecurity. I never intended to use the page for promotional purposes; rather, it aims only to present information in an encyclopedic manner regarding the activities I am involved in.

I kindly ask you to reconsider this nomination, as the content does not align with the promotional or advertising standards set by Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you for your understanding. Arab hacking (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Arab hacking#December 2024 for answer to your request. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection to the Angeliki Fund

[edit]

Hi Rory, you recently rejected the article for the Angeliki Fund. I wanted to edit the post so that it meets the requirements. The instructions were to contact you instead of creating a new post. I would appreciate it if you can point me how to do that as there is no active link to edit the article. Thank you. Niksnakeeyes (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted because it was promotional, not encyclopedic, so you should start over rather than revising the old draft. However, I caution you to carefully review how and why articles are written, as the Angeliki Fund may not be suitable for an article in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a business directory, so an organization is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. All topics must be notable by Wikipedia's definition to merit inclusion. In the specific case of an organization, it must meet the notability criteria for companies and organizations. For this to happen, the organization must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We have no interest in what a organization wishes to say about itself, as this is an inherent conflict of interest. Writing about a non-notable organization where you have a financial interest is considered promotion, which can result in sanctions.
If, after reading this, you still want to write the article, I suggest using the Wikipedia:Article wizard, as it will help you construct your first article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 deletions.

[edit]

Hi. There was a mistake in the SPI closure for the Gilberatalessandro054 case, and most of the accounts have been unblocked (see User talk:UtherSRG#Sock blocks). You performed a string of G5 deletions tagged as a result of the case between 22:39 22:45 UTC yesterday, which should probably be reversed (unless other reasons for deletion apply). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeps. Well, I went through those and undeleted the ones created by now-unblocked editors, removed CSD tags, and left message Blocked by mistake. See Special:Permalink/1266440973#Sock blocks and Special:Permalink/1266251574#Gilberatalessandro054. Now unblocked. That was a mess. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for this, not seen a reversal like that before especially given the other issues. CMD (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rsjaffe, for the fixes. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for what purpose?

[edit]

as records, I've maintained archives for 4 years now. zoglophie•talk• 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DELTALK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thankyou. zoglophie•talk• 21:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent spam edits

[edit]

Thanks for blocking Mehedi Hasaan Shadhin. Did not notice that the websites were related. Similar spam edits and drafts were also recently made by other users (who could be blocked): Angelina725 - lanemario22 - pascuaflorida3 - Penelopenguyeno. The spammed websites could also be blacklisted: cookwithcooker.com - fireongrils.com - rhiannaalvarezcookerlover.blogspot.com. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are good that there is a sockpuppet/spam farm situation here. Do you want to report it? Are you familiar with reporting to SPI? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing I noticed is that the web sites probably are "fronts". They don't represent physical businesses. Look at the addresses on https://www.cookwithcooker.com/contact-us/ and https://www.fireongrills.com/contact/ ! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy noms

[edit]

Hello, many thanks for speedily deleting the Bodiadub pages I nominated. Could you please consider salting them? They have already been deleted previously; see the logs in the SPI I linked. Again, thank you. Janhrach (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I deleted them, I salted those that were repeatedly recreated. I'll go look back and see if any others need that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not know that salting does not show up in my watchlist, so I didn't know you had already salted them. Janhrach (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed the Bodiadub pages. None of them were recreations (used different spelling). At this point I won't salt those as the number of recreations over the two spellings are not enough in my opinion to do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are others who disagree, but imo in this kind of case, where multiple spellings of the title are possible, it's better not to salt - because we actually do want them to keep recreating the article in the same place so we can more easily catch them and delete the article when they do. Patrollers are more likely to notice it's recreated if it has a deletion log. -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

62.74.24.207 DBA 62.74.24.220

[edit]

Blocked sock anon 62.74.24.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now editing as 62.74.24.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of AfD for Eric Gilbertson (climber)

[edit]

Hey @Rsjaffe!

Thank you for doing the speedy deletion of Eric Gilbertson (climber).

Now that the article has been deleted, should the AfD be closed?

Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can close it. It's a snow delete there anyway. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a fairly strong support for salting it. Can that be done please? Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally hesitant to salt unless it's created lots of times. Further, the problematic editor has voluntarily backed away from this subject, so I'll leave it unsalted for now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure why the creator asked for speedy rather than just letting it close naturally. It was already halfway there. It is still considered a full delete, rather than a "soft delete" at this point, right? It says "(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND)" and I have reservation about it if it has been left as a softer delete than if it was allowed to close naturally. Graywalls (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've salted it with a note about the parallel AfD so that it'll be clear to an admin that there was a parallel AfD. Next time I'll snow close the AfD without acting on the CSD so that it won't cause such confusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hello, can you tell me if the 173.175.200.238 recent user edits are vandalism or not? He has done a lot of reverting in a very short time and I wonder if this is correct, this is not a dispute about the content, I just want to avoid a case of vandalism, I don't know what to think about it SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dispute in that there is disagreement as to whether their edits are correct or not. I'm not saying you're in an argument with them.
I'm not an expert in that area, so I don't know whose edits are right. The IP editor seems focused on reverting the edits of 2601:14D:4B80:1950:4099:63CD:455C:525A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and has warned them about violating WP:MOS. I suggest continuing to discuss with them on your user page, and come to a better understanding of what's going on. If you see 173.175.200.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changing facts to be incorrect, then we may be looking at vandalism. Short of that, it's a dispute. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving your perspective on the situation. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User-talkpage deletion

[edit]

Regarding User talk:213.42.6.35, the page-creation is from an IP that is on an extensive vandalism spree and evading several blocks. I could see it G3/G5 (DENY, etc.), and especially to avoid harassment of the IP whose page it is. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the quick re-check! The problem is Special:Contributions/37.111.144.0/20 if you're interested. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson

[edit]

Hey Rsjaffe;

[Sorry for the wall of text, I ended up doing a lot of thinking out loud. I hope this is somewhat valuable.]

I’m not sure if I’m doing this right, as I’ve never posted on Wikipedia before. I followed instructions on a Wikipedia help page that said to contact the relevant admin in the case of questions about any specific article deletion… that page was this one, and I then saw you had a banner stating that the best form of contact would be posting on your “talk” page.

I was just curious about the deletion of the article of American climber/highpointer Eric Gilbertson. As of right now, if you Google his name, his Wikipedia article is the top suggested search result. However, clicking on the Wikipedia link redirects to a page on deletion, so it’s a dead link. It says it was deleted by user:Rsjaffe.

I’m not sure what my question is, actually. I’m sure not every interesting or notable outdoorsperson needs their own Wikipedia page, but I was wondering if this means Wikipedia is adopting a new policy of cracking down on articles about notable peakbaggers, highpointers, FKTers, mountaineers, explorers, or endurance athletes. I could see the argument that these forms of outdoor recreation, although increasingly popular, are still too niche for their most prominent figures to have their own Wikipedia pages. It can be very tricky to determine notability in a community that often eschews traditional media attention or mainstream notoriety.

Off the top of my head, most comparable figures seem to have current articles, but some do not. Just considering the relevant reference class, it looks like their are current Wiki pages on Andrew Skurka, Russ Cook, Nimblewill Nomad, Eric Larsen, Nims Purja, Jake Meyer, Francis Tapon, Ray Jardine, Tom Davies, Jeff Browning, Warren Doyle, Ginge Fullen, Karel Sabbe, Dale Shewalter, and Brian Robinson; other prominent individuals in this broad reference class, like Edward Earl, Justin Simoni, Nick Fowler, and John and Alyson Kirk, for instance, do not have their own pages.

Obviously others who have always deliberately sought to stay out of the public eye (Petter Bjørstad, Adam Helman, Steven Song, Bob Packard, Adam Walker) or who are already attracting notoriety but are in the nascent stages of their careers (Will Peterson, Max Jollife, Jackson Marvell, Georgia Porter) are not going to end up on Wikipedia, but it does seem like the line is unclear and the qualities for inclusion in this general area are poorly defined.

I’ve rambled here for a while, but do you have any thoughts on how Wikipedia could contribute to greater clarity around this space?

I hope I’ve done this posting thing correctly.

Thank you very much, Respectfully, FE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:250E:1500:E48A:7AF1:ECA9:4A13 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted at the request of the author and as consensus on a deletion discussion. Whether or not an article is suitable depends mainly upon the objective third-party in-depth sources for the subject. At the time of deletion, the deletion discussion conclusion was based on the lack of good sources. If you are able to properly source an article for Wikipedia, it probably would be fine for inclusion. Sources count more than an individual's accomplishments do, as Wikipedia depends upon verifiable third-party information for articles. So it's less about being deserving of an article and more about being noticed and reported on by others. You can look at WP:GNG if you are interested in gathering information together that would support an article for him. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vdarveau and copyvio

[edit]

Hi. I see you deleted Draft:Text huso3 and User:Vdarveau/huso-topic3-reworked as copyright violations. Those two are not eligible for G12 as the source site is CC-BY 4.0 which is an acceptable license for Wikipedia. Although Vdarveau did not attribute the sources, I did repair the lack of attribution for both. Please reverse the deletion. Thanks, -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]

My browser doesn't allow me to use a real barnstar, but let this act in its place. Thank you for reducing my stress. We've gotten a lot of criticism in social media lately, and you have done fine work in preventing a possible public relations disaster. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of page protection

[edit]

Hey, since you seem to have attracted an IP hopping vandal, let me know if you would like your user talk page protected for a few days. signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it’s ok without. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:BUU SKIBIDI

[edit]

A user you blocked, BUU SKIBIDI, used their talk page in an inappropriate manner after you blocked the user. See Special:Diff/1271834304. Yoshi24517 and I recommend removing this user's ability to edit their own talk page. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are allowed to delete block notices. About the only thing they can’t delete are declined unblock requests. See WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they added inappropriate things, I’d block the talk page. But deletions, no. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe: I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Poottopia

[edit]

Just notice this recently created account has a username that might violate Wikipedia:Username policy indicated by their first three letters, apart from being only a vandalism account. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like they're already blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LAST MESSAGE - I DON'T CARE IF YOU BLOCK ME

[edit]

I'm struggling to understand how blocking me would address your concerns. Honestly, I'm disappointed by the personal attacks from other users, which I don't believe are constructive or respectful. I firmly believe that Wikipedia's credibility is compromised by the presence of inaccurate information. I stand by my assertion that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you choose to block me, I accept that decision, but I hope in the future, you will take steps to address the issues I've raised. I also hope that users will focus on improving content rather than tracking individual editors' contributions. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mr. Accuracy Specialist. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to respond to the ANI report as I feel it may lead to further personal attacks. I believe my points are being disregarded, and I'm concerned that engaging with these users will not be productive. They've asked me to explain, but I'm unsure if it's worth investing time when the discussion has become confrontational. I think it's best to focus on improving the content rather than engaging in unnecessary debates. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I'll ask to be unblocked, then I'm sorry to disappoint you. I refuse to bow down and compromise my standards to appease individuals with low standards who don't even hold a doctoral degree. I stand by my principles and maintain that Wikipedia's credibility is compromised by the presence of inaccurate information.
WIKIPEDIA is FAKE COMMUNITY.
FULL OF FAKE INFORMATION. HOME OF UNRELIABLE SOURCES. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To FACT-CHECKED you and debunked your argument on me.
There are two main issues here. Firstly, regarding personal attacks: I didn't initiate the insults. Every time I made an edit, someone would revert it, even though I explained that I removed unsourced content. Despite this, others continued to edit.
Secondly, regarding disruptive edits: What's wrong with removing uncited claims? Isn't that a necessary step to ensure accuracy? I fail to see the logic in criticizing me for this. It seems that you, like the others, are failing to comprehend the importance of verifying information. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags, Denmark

[edit]

List of Danish flags I can see you have tried to reach out to me, but I have also replied back to you, but yes, there are reason why those flags is here, because some of the flags have been used by Denmark, and some of those flags are still been using buy some minorities in Denmark and regions unofficial flags only too represents peoples of those regions. And removing those flags from this list, those people they are doing this have none respect for Denmark and something like that is more or less considered vandalism.

And the removal of flags from the historical flags is also not in order because Denmark has had a great many areas and countries under it throughout time and that is also why it was divided with times and years for each time Denmark gained some land and lost some land and also flags from the royals with people who choose to remove these flags have absolutely no respect for which from Denmark the Danes or the royal royal family from Denmark

All Frisian flag Nordic model, flags like this one used by the Frisian minority, that is an a free people they can move in that area that have in different countries just like Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands
An regions unofficial flag, Jutland. Just an example.
The flag of Germans of Northern Schleswig, Denmark, this flag is used by German minority in in Denmark
Flag of Northern Germany.

80.208.68.164 (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So yes, you have none reason to do this at all, because you cannot block someone without any reasons that is against Wikipedia and you know that because you have been here for 17 years, you should know that that should always be a reason for that if they are not a reason that means you are actually, you are abusing this thing to block others or so that you cannot edit various things and cases, and because you have no reason to do this, you are actually abusing this thing which is against Wikipedia guidelines and rules and because you have chosen to do this which is not right, you may risk being shut down or prevented from editing things and cases on Wikipedia because you have chosen to abuse this thing, but you should know that because you've been here for 17 years and because you've chosen to abuse this thing, maybe some other administrator chooses to close your profile down, maybe because this just looks like abuse or you have abused this power and you choose to block someone and prevent someone from editing a page but without any reason to do so because you have no reason. 80.208.68.164 (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the only thing that you might be left in is that they have to go and talk to you to get this thing opened again so that you can edit on this page again but again you have no reason to do this and that is nothing more than abuse of this power that you have but you have no reason to do it because you always have to leave a message why you choose to do this but you have not done that which is actually an abuse and negotiating people in editing on the page mentioned here, List of Danish flags.
00:39, 2 February 2025
80.208.68.164(talk)
00:39, 2 February 2026
11 months, 30 days, 14 hours and 33 minutes left
Rsjaffe(talk)
editing
pages
List of Danish flags
anon. only
See discussion on this user's talk page. Reverted by multiple editors, ignoring concensus.
I Have not ignored anything at all, but you have to leave a message to how and see why I should be unlocked again/ unblocked again. But again you have none reasons do it anyways. To do this to begin with at all.
you haven't really given either on this website or on this page on Wikipedia I have but you haven't there are many others like me who have but you're just an administrator or something like that but you don't know everything /you don't know about everything that has happened on this website, you would only know that if you had edited this website yourself, but you haven't and I haven't ignored anything at all, I've just added these flags because it is part of Denmark's history and many of these flags represent different peoples who live in Denmark and possibly Greenland and the Faroe Islands, or the Danish minority who live in Schleswig-Holstein in Germany and so on. And I have also added other flags because Denmark has also had many areas and take clothes over time yes they have lost land over time but that was also why the historical flags are also the other and so much else in other colonies and also flags as people have chosen to remove as they have something to do with political flags and parties in Denmark and not other countries. but yes Denmark has had really many like England as an example the other countries in the Nordics and some of India and many other countries that people don't know that Denmark once inherited or had in their possession but that's why you have Wikipedia so people can learn something about other countries and maybe even learn something like them maybe if they already but just in a completely new way. 80.208.68.164 (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
I'm so glad you are an administrator. There can be a tendency among some admins to be a little trigger-happy and I prefer your attitude of letting discussions evolve as sometimes disputes can be resolved without sanctions being imposed. It's nice to the human side of administrating. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It’s a big contrast between ANI and AIV, where speed is sometimes useful. I’m trying to keep balanced, which is hard when you see so much ill-willed vandalism going on in AIV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MarkMeets was deleted? How odd

[edit]

I was genuinely surprised to see that the MarkMeets Wikipedia page was speedily deleted, despite its clear notability and longstanding presence in the media industry. Given that similar outlets such as Popjustice, The Line of Best Fit, Far Out, and even major media brands like Deutsche Welle have their own pages, it seems inconsistent for MarkMeets to be excluded.

MarkMeets has been an influential and widely recognized source for entertainment news, celebrity interviews, film coverage, and industry insights for over 20 years. It has been cited in major publications, collaborated with global media brands, and is a trusted source for industry professionals and audiences alike.

The deletion appears to be a premature decision that may not have fully considered the brand’s extensive contributions to the entertainment industry and they have many mentions on wiki. Maybe thet wiki editors do not specialize in this area of media / organization (my friend did not know the BEE GEES, they does not mean they are not KNOWN).

The page was written with neutral, verifiable, and well-sourced content, adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I kindly request a thorough review of this decision and ask that MarkMeets be granted a rightful place on Wikipedia, just like its comparable counterparts.

I would appreciate any clarification on specific concerns that led to its deletion and would be happy to address any issues necessary to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s standards.

SO many other similar pages are live, it's odd that this one was over-looked with a retired medical person making a decision? NigelJong (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rsjaffe&oldid=1273674563"