User talk:TheresNoTime/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TheresNoTime. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

136.49.32.166

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} It might be time to take another look at this IP – after just coming back off a block from you, they are immediately engaging in behavior that is at least borderline disruptive... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) handled. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheers GN, good block ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

SPI case move should have been the last section only

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello TNT! I've been away for a few days so I only noticed now, but moving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thetranslaterofhistory to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mazulu1010 was a mistake. When I asked "this case" to be moved, I should have said "this section": it's only the accounts reported in the 31 August 2021 section (Polynoir and the list of accounts in my comment) which are sockpuppets of Mazulu1010 rather than of Thetranslaterofhistory. Mazulu1010 and their socks were originally blocked in March as socks of Xwasx12s (a confirmed sock of Thetranslaterofhistory), but as I point out in my overlong comment, Mazulu1010 and Thetranslaterofhistory are really two distinct sockmasters, each with their own editing pattern. Mazulu1010 and their socks also still need proper tagging. Sorry for the confusion! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: aaah! Um, I'll poke a more experienced SPI clerk to fix my mess and just stick to clicking the CheckUser buttons!

~TNT (she/they • talk) 09:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that was my fault entirely, I should have been much clearer in my request! If you want to use your CheckUser buttons though, I could really use some help in this case (this user has created a new account every day for the last three days). If you feel rather like taking it easy today, please do refer me to another CU! Thanks,

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, it looks like this wasn't a histmerge, just a move, so at least we don't have to histsplit. Confirming: I should put the case back where it came from and just split this latest case to Mazulu? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: yes please! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 02:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Handled. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

TNTBot task

Hi. Glad to see you back from your break. I just wanted to note that there were some errors in TNTBot's latest replacement task. Some pages had empty section headers/pseudo-headers remaining, some had section headers removed despite there being other content remaining under the section, and some, where the link was surrounded by a textual description, had the text remaining in a way that would confuse the reader. Most also left an extra blank line. I've made some fixes (and pinged you in some), but haven't been able to get to all of them. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Drat. Massive apologies, I'll see if I can get another run to clean up the mess

~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Cardiomegaly

💖

Love, -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You are loved and cherished here on-wiki. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thirding the love and appreciation ♥️, and am really happy to see more people intentionally taking breaks and care of themselves, which makes it easier for others as well! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Fourthing these sentiments TNT. Especially the cherished part. Be well and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks all, back on the mend ~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the MfD

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Just to explain further, I agree that the first step in any case like this should be talking with the user. Tryptofish had already done that in this case, and TOA had responded with a too-cute-by-half answer before marking the thread as closed. I didn't see anything left to be done other than MfD or ANI, and I decided I'd rather focus on the narrow issue of the page and take it to MfD.

You know I don't like wiki-drama. I often go out of my way to avoid it. But sometimes there's no other option. If you'd like to reduce the amount of drama that's about to happen... Let's be honest, TOA's gonna be indeffed sooner or later. You or any other admin could always press the button now and save the community some time.

You know I think you're one of our best admins. I will keep in mind what you said. All the best, -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I'm fairly unimpressed with the whole thing to be honest, and on reflection I'm not sure how much more or less drama could have been caused. We should always try to be better though. As an aside, I know you well enough to know you likely don't mean to be rude with "You or any other admin could always press the button now and save the community some time." - it does trivialise things a bit though ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize, when I reread that I realized the tone was not what I intended. As you know, sometimes I struggle hitting the nail on the head in that regard. I hope you know, though, that I would never trivialize what you or other admins do. <3

I always feel weird thanking admins for blocks of anything other than vandals, but, thank you for making this one. This was a case where someone could have kept on causing drama across multiple fora for weeks or months to come, absent an admin willing to make a tough call. Which I think answers your own question of "more or less drama". Sometimes it's not so much "more" or "less", versus "all at once" or "painfully slow". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

SPI

I apologize for even raising this, and I realize that by now you must be near to wit's end with this whole nasty business, but I feel the need to discuss with you the checkuser block of MPants ([1]). I agree that it was appropriate to block the OhForFuqsSake account, for obvious reasons. But when MPants posted his now-infamous retirement statement, he said that he was going to save the edit and then scramble his password. Under the circumstances, the only way he could have commented was with a new account, and although the comment was inappropriate, there was nothing deceptive about it: it was plainly obvious who the user was. As such, I feel that it doesn't really meet the terms of the blocking policy for sockpuppetry. Would you be willing to reconsider? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: You're quite right, give me a moment to figure out the most appropriate (re/un)blocks to make etc ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Hmm, let me revise that to I'm not sure, and unsure enough that a review of those blocks is probably the better way of dealing with this. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I've emailed the CheckUser mailing list asking for a review. It's gone 11pm here and I'm beyond exhausted both physically and mentally, so goodnight

~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

{{done}} ~TNT (she/they • talk) 09:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Sumneeb

Hi, could you take a look at this page? I think there's more enough to justify a check of the two accounts. In addition to the rather strange dialog between the two accounts and me, which is sometimes hard to follow, there are additional points:

Sumneeb now says that Reklaw's name is Sam Walker. If you look at the image in the article, which I've just tagged as a copyright violation at Commons, you can see that the article was uploaded by MrSamContributor with the "author" noted as Sam Walker.
Sumneeb says that the reason he edited the Reklaw article first was because he was "looking to make changes in new, small articles to get expertise". However, the only other articles he's edited are Punjab and Multan, neither of which is a "small" article.
The name Sam is everywhere. :-)

There's enough evidence to believe they are socks. At the same time, it's also possible they know each other (meat), but they deny having any connection to each other or to Reklaw. The checkuser needed template has been sitting there for a while. I'd rather a CheckUser decline it if they think I'm out of line than let it hang. Please let me know what you think, even if you disagree with me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hey, looking at this now ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: looks very

Unrelated. There's some (routine/expected) residential proxy use here, but nothing conclusive or suggestive of evasion/abuse ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you want to post your finding at Sumneeb's Talk page, or would you prefer that I do something there? It should at least be removed from the table.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - have responded now

hope you're well ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If I could just sleep a little more... --Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

While on the subject, there's another suspicious user Metehanahmed that could be connected to either of the other accounts. Created 12 September 2021, only edits are on Sam Reklaw and Caterham Racing (the series that Reklaw competed in). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed. They are on quite a tear on the Reklaw article. Also noticed that Sumneeb stopped editing yesterday, while Metehanahmed started editing today.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sam, I don't suppose you'd consider checking Metehanahmed? Given the other two accounts were unrelated, I'm thinking it's more likely that Metehanahmed is related to Sumneeb. Worse, I am now beginning to think that some of this is a hoax. I'm having real trouble deciding whether the British racing car driver known as Sam Walker is the same person as Sam Reklaw. GiantSnowman, you're my go-to person for anything sports-related, although car racing may not be your strong point, could you take a look at what's going on? Me, I'm about to give up. :-( Talking to these users is painful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: just because they are technically unrelated does not mean there is not meatpuppetry going on. To me all 3 appear to be SPIs and/or paid. Giant Snowman 18:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: What about the business of whether Sam Reklaw = Sam Walker?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't find any sources confirming that Reklaw = Walker, but this confirms the film person is the same as the motorsport person. There is a lot of low level coverage of this guy from the last 2-4 days; looks like a PR offensive to me, which these editors are probably linked with. Giant Snowman 18:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen other puff pieces like that one. I just don't understand why they don't mention the name Walker at all. You should see Reklaw's website. Be sure to look at all the things he's selling. Let's assume Walker and Reklaw are the same person. Are Walker's racing car accomplishments sufficiently notable for an article about him?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

oh wow, that website is...something. WP:NMOTORSPORT is the applicable SNG, and I don't think he meets it, although you might wish to double check at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Even if he does, the lack of GNG is more important. Giant Snowman 18:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Qwaiiplayer, and GiantSnowman: I've just checked Metehanahmed and nothing is immediately visible - not keen to dig too deep on this one. They all show some sort of residential proxy use, and though this is common for the area, it could also be masking evasion I suppose. Apologies I can't be more helpful here ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologize? Don't be silly. I appreciate your efforts. GiantSnowman, thanks for looking at this; I'm not sure I'm up to posting at the project. I'm gonna do something I'm good at: eat lunch! --Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Leave it with me and I'll report back if I get anywhere. Giant Snowman 19:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, TheresNoTime. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Love your user page! I even stole some parts of it ;-; 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs)} 03:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

SajidMir2 SPI

In case you have the pings disabled, just informing you of this message of mine. I think CU comparison between MullahBalawar and AbbasWafadar might produce more conclusive results. Thanks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Question on close

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi, just wanted to say thanks for closing the ANI discussion. I had a question on the followup though. Given their personal attacks against myself and others in that now revdeleted post by his sock account, would the best follow up be a new ANI thread? Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Whose sock? I thought we didn't know whether it was a sock at all. In fact, a reasonable inference from the block log is that OFFS is not a sock. Regardless, I can't see any benefit to a new ANI thread; one was bad enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23 They were confirmed here. The issue comes in when they come back. Either on their main account or a clean start. What they did to me is not okay. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I had no idea it was taken to SPI. Now I'm curious as to TNT's thinking.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to butt in here, and say that it would be a bad idea to start something like this. It would create needless escalation, and could potentially boomerang. If he comes back, you can always ask for a 2-way IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input but because they were attacking several editors and not just me, mixed with all the things, we are past an IBAN here. He has already shown that he is perfectly fine coming back solely to attack people and an IBAN will not solve that. It also does not address the concerns I mentioned above. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey I don't mean to be a pest but have you had a chance to look it over? PackMecEng (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

She hasn't been on-wiki since your original post in this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Well dang! PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hehe, a female electrical engineer who says "dang". You're just shattering all the stereotypes. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To be fair most of my career was mechanical! It's just back when I got my degree, when you finished the mechanical you were about 90% the way there for the electrical. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I'm sorry to suggest it, but ANI probably is your best bet - I've lost my appetite for dealing with this at the moment. Really sorry ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't mean to bring you down on, but I can see where you are coming from on this. I appreciate the input and hope the rest of your week is great! PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

thx for removing the nomination of speedy deletion on my page. I don't know how to reward your kind actions Aniq Sufyan (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aniq Sufyan: You're quite welcome

~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

UFC 266 - page protection

Hi ThereNoTime, I have reported the page for protection. Lots of vandalism for this is a live event. Pls help to protect the page asap. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: {{done}} ~TNT (she/they • talk) 05:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much TheresNoTime. Appreciate your help. stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Dr Sachin Kapur Fanclub

Sorry for disturbing, i just noticed and based on edit pattern i think they are back. Someone already made a request before me, if you have time, please consider checking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr Sachin Kapur Fanclub. Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

{{done}} ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Am I too suspicious?

CosmicJacuzzi. First edit out of the box was to revert an IP with an edit summary of "rvv" (an edit summary more common to old-time admins, like me, for example) followed by a warning to the IP's Talk page. Answers questions at the WP:Teahouse. Hasn't answered my question on their Talk page about other accounts, although I did find the place (one of their posts at the Teahouse) where they state that they have used an IP for a long time. And then there's the colorful username, which, unfortunately, makes me think of User:CosmicEmperor, not that I think it's the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know, it doesn't bother me at all if you reject my request. I'd prefer a "sorry but no" to no response.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I am so sorry!!! I thought I replied! I did a check not long after you left me a message and nothing was immediately visible. I'm really sorry :-( ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes are far preferable to being ignored. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans

In the media: The future of Wikipedia

Opinion: Wikimedians of Mainland China were warned

Op-Ed: I've been desysopped

Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages

Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators

Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings

Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?

Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11

News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund

WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Category for Met articles

Would you be able to create a hidden category named "WikiProject Weather no task force" or something similar? I'm unsure what steps need to be taken to make it hidden. The articles in question that need categorization may be found here. It would be just the C, start, stub, list, and future components. I gave a notice here without any objections thus far. I would appreciate it if you are able to categorize these. Thank you. Noah^Talk 12:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why has this category been put on article pages? Categories of this nature are always put on talk pages, by means of the relevant WikiProject banner. See for example Category:Military history articles with no associated task force which is generated by {{WikiProject Military history}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for the message - I should have read Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts, as that fairly clearly says "Don't apply maintenance categories directly: use templates.". Apologies. This discussion seems to have reached a conclusion, so I should probably ping Primefac and ask if reverting my 253 edits is appropriate at this time ~TNT (she/her • talk) 09:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

{{done}}. Not sure if the category is still needed so I didn't G7 it, but I think you know how to handle that. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Return of the Sandbox spammer

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079 § Serial sandbox spammer

Hi TheresNoTime,

About a week or so ago you dealt with an IP editor that was spamming the sandbox with nonsense/links related to mope.io. It seems the spammer has returned as 5.142.229.60 and is now spamming the sandbox with fake conversations about mope.io, adding {{nobots}} to try to stop bots from refreshing the sandbox and reverting anyone that tries to clean up after them [2]. They also seem to have discovered the template sandbox, and are spamming that with more mope.io themed nonsense too [3]. Did you manage to get the site added to the spam blacklist? they don't seem to be adding links anymore but its probably still worth doing. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Geez, looks like they've been doing this on-and-off since 2017 on 5.142.224.0/20. IP seems to only change every few months on that range, though, which is nice. On 176.59.0.0/19 it changes a bit faster, but they seem to have only been on that briefly. Not sure if there's other ranges I'm missing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: They're also back as 178.68.117.108, so it seems there's another range they have access to. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin and .74 - I've made blocks on 178.68.117.0/24 and 5.142.224.0/20.. this might be a good candidate for an edit filter ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

According to today's edits, these ranges look like 178.68.112.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 5.142.192.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), FYI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Cheers zzuuzz, I've played whack-a-mole again with a pBlock, but evidently we can't keep doing these.. I will get around to a filter ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: they're back again as 95.52.18.132, and they seem to have discovered the draft space sandbox too. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI

I didn't want to say anything at ANI because I didn't want to prolong what I thought was an unproductive discussion about your question. That said, I thought your question was understandable and in no way offensive. I didn't think they were an admin, either, and I personally have never seen the point of being an admin if one doesn't use one's tools (I also think admins should identify themselves on their user pages, although I know it's not required). As an aside, I didn't realize the vandal was a sock of CalebHughes, but it was obvious they were a sock of Hollonian, the account you blocked recently as VOA. I was just about to block Hardenian as a sock, but you acted more quickly. Looks like you have it all sorted.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I hope I didn't come across as offensive there to anyone else.. was very much a passing comment meant more along the lines of "you could have dealt with this yourself". I too take issue with editors holding rights they don't use, and dislike adminship being seen as a "status symbol". I don't believe that's the case there though

~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello! Sorry to bother you, I found two user (User:ConyJuul & User:Random is a 15th) creating The Spine of Night and Draft:The Spine of Night, consider check those users that they are sockpuppet... Article recently I redirect to Draft. Thanks---Limited Idea4me (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Limited's account was created on October 2, and doesn't act at all like a new user. I was reviewing their edits yesterday trying to figure out who they were. I found some evidence that they are Dr Sachin Kapur Fanclub. I was looking at the most recent sock at SPI, Xpërt100. I concluded that I didn't have enough behavioral evidence to block without corroboration, then I got tired and dropped it. Some of the articles they intersect on are unusual. There are also some articles Limited has edited that multiple socks have edited, but some indicators for me are absent from the mix, which is why I haven't acted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Is a bit suspicious... have you seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamjeetmallick? The technical data really wasn't helpful in this case unfortunately ~TNT (she/her • talk) 14:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey! ConyJuul here. Is there any way that I can show that I am just a guy that liked the film? I can understand that just saying 'I'm not a sockpuppet' isn't sufficient, but I just wanted to hear you out. I can't remember how to sign comments, but wiki usually does it automatically when I can't:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConyJuul (talk • contribs)

@Limited Idea4me: Other concerns notwithstanding, I'll take a look at this, thank you for letting me know ~TNT (she/her • talk) 14:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, @TheresNoTime:! Can you check Hughes Entertainment... recently I requested to make semi-protection to prevent persistent vandalism by ips. Thanks! ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Limited Idea4me: Protected for a week, though I am not sure if that will be enough. Hopefully they get bored. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hello, @TheresNoTime: Sorry for bother you again! Can you check recently death Abdul Qadeer Khan? recently I requested to (Liz;no reply) make semi-protection for short time to prevent constantly vandalism by ips. Thanks! ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Limited Idea4me: I've put 24 hours worth of semi-protection on the article given the recent news ~TNT (she/her • talk) 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and also....

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I sent an e-mail to the OS list related to what just happened. I didn't notice you were an OS or I'd have hit you up directly instead of bothering a whole mailing list. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Hey, no worries - I went and grabbed the ticket. Hope you're doing well ~TNT (she/her • talk) 15:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about a barnstar

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi TNT! I saw at User:TheresNoTime/Barnstars#A_barnstar_for_you!_22 that you had a rather funny edit and I must admit I am curious the fuller context around it? Do you happen to remember where that edit was made? Also learned, in looking for it, that you have magical powers...that's interesting. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Which edit do you mean?

~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"People go crazy for these clouds huh ~TNT" --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Ohhh! That was from my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jrdyhrberg 😝 ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. I wish I knew the context around that, but it definitely is a wacky comment haha. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: The hurricane lot are fairly fanatical (think railfan)... that one in particular is creating loads of socks just to edit hurricane articles!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheresNoTime (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah! That makes total sense now. That is very funny indeed. Thanks for the chuckle!

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

IP Puppet Back

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} It seems this IP is the very same recently blocked Michael ben Zvi. @Bbb23: had dealt with him before but I am unable to contact the admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.106.49 (talk • contribs)

Hi IP - I've blocked them, thank you ~TNT (she/her • talk) 19:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Again user Adelphopolis

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello. User Adelphopolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ban just endend and he again started his disputed edits, vandalism and edit warring in various Azerbaijani topic articles[4][5][6] and in the article he was blocked just few days ago for edit warring[7]. I thinkh we need give him a little bit more time to learn Wikipedia rules. Interfase (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Interfase: I've blocked them for the exact same behaviour. They responded with some personal attacks, so their ability to edit their talk page has been removed. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Interfase (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Highly problematic user Interfase

Shall we not ~TNT (she/her • talk) 21:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, TNT. Above, Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), known for deleting useful edits without rationale or reasons, canvasses you and threatens me instead of disputing my edits on respective talk pages. Also, I am not a "him", but instead a female user, and I object to Interfase's backward parlance. At [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12], Interfase labels my edits as "vandalism" without providing sources as to why figures and places are "Azerbaijani". Interfase's edits are anachronistic, and more importantly, disruptive. Adelphopolis (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You remove information based on reliable sources (that is vandalsm), you return your disputed edits that were removed by different users (this is edit warring and POV-pushing). You already was blocked for that, but it didn't teach you anything. And you continue your POV-pushing and vandalism again. Interfase (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The un-English and slanderous statements below, "this is edit warring and POV-pushing" and "yoy POV-pushing and vandalism again", say everything about the user Interfase one needs to know. Adelphopolis (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What does "base don" or "You already was blocked" mean? You clearly have no command of the English language, meaning that you are WP:NOTHERE. Learn Wikipedia etiquette and its language first. Adelphopolis (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Socky sock

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello, TNT,

I think Felix345345 is another sockpuppet of Peluches extronidos, another editor of Eddswars and MissaSinfonia. It's a honeypot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Good spot - I've just checked & blocked them :-) ~TNT (she/her • talk) 15:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! @TheresNoTime: Can you check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/89.19.67.116 once time? If you have time.. They were all together vandalizing Mobutu Sese Seko at the same time gape. Thanks ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It means joining...

da club....hehehe (this is obviously carrying on the conversation from the other place as my clever easter egg link wouldnt work) Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

@Casliber: I followed, don't worry 😋 no prizes for second place though...! On a serious note, that is incredibly impressive - I've never really been much of a content editor ~TNT (she/her • talk) 13:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That page is an immature dick-measuring contest.....but then again, who said I was mature XD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Test section

test! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Test section

test! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A bahnstar for you!

		The bahn star award
		Thanks for blocking those socks today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Thank you I think! 😅 ~TNT (she/her • talk) 15:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see my barnstar is spreading. Part 1 of my ~~evil~~ good-faith plan to take over Wikimedia is thus complete... ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: You can always talk yourself into a block /j ~TNT (she/her • talk) 23:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Leftover draft from sockorama?

Hello, TNT,

I was going through a broken redirect after broken redirect chain from today's multiple moves of Dedy Tisna Amijaya's socks pages as they went from main space to draft space and back again and I think you got them all except Sekala Brak. On this Sekala Brak-subject spree over the past 10 days, there must have been two dozen different pages of what was basically the same article under different titles. And I still could not understand what it was all about the writing was so obtuse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: What am I reading?? Is this two different topics...? I'm very close to just deleting the darn thing, but at least the lower part of that seems "important" ~TNT (she/her • talk) 23:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have several college degrees but none of them prepared me to understand the Sekala Brak group of articles. It has something to do with a tribe in Indonesia and a king and a kingdom...but I think I need a pop-up version that simplifies the storyline.

I just noticed that I linked the wrong page, it's Draft:Notes About Sekala Brak that's leftover. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: It is much too early for me to parse what Draft:Notes About Sekala Brak is about either.. I'll put it on my list for later, unless someone else figures it out in the meantime. What a mess they caused :( ~TNT (she/her • talk) 07:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems from my brief research that Sekala Brak was some sort of kingdom or empire in what is now Indonesia. There's an idwiki article about it (that has recently been trimmed radically on account of unreliable sourcing). It seems that there is some sort of modern movement to preserve the culture and customs of this group, which may explain what our sockmaster is up to. Such movements often lead to a proliferation of original research and unreliable pseudo-history being written on the topic, which will make writing a proper article all the more difficult... firefly ( t · c ) 10:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A request

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Can you please look at today's TFA? I believe needs a move but there is also an article named Doug Ring that looks very simple. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 00:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223: It looks like Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is a valid split from Doug Ring? I'm not sure hist-merging them back would be a great idea, even less so while its the featured article - that sounds like a recipe for disaster. It doesn't look like anything urgently needs to happen, so I'd suggest raising this on a talk page ~TNT (she/her • talk) 00:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I see whats happening. Never mind. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 00:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223: I'm glad someone does! 😅 Thank you for keeping an eye out for these things though, I really appreciate your contributions. Keep up the great work ~TNT (she/her • talk) 00:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from Tmilller07 on Kerr-McGee (22:21, 14 October 2021)

I was trying to sign up for the Tronox --Tmilller07 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tmilller07: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Did you mean Tronox? ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

copy-vio at Katarniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hey: since you declined the copy-vio revdel at Katarniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary, you might not have seen the resp. statement. Compare this sentence at the very end of diff 1049894656 : Dudhwa tigers are distributed in one major and three smaller populations. Major population is constituted by Dudhwa reserve which includes Dudhwa National Park, Kishenpur and Katarniaghat wildlife sanctuaries, Pilibhit forests and north and south Kheri forests. Smaller tiger populations are present in Bijnor forests in west and Suhelwa and Sohagi Barwa wildlife sanctuaries in east. with verbatim sentences at the end of this times of india (2012) article. – BhagyaMani (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The same user added above sentence again. The entire section titled Ecotourism added by same user is copy-pasted verbatim from Pilibhit_Tiger_Reserve#Ecotourism. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's anything I need to do here

~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 15:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TheresNoTime. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yleventa2 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yleventa2: Thanks for the note, just seen your email - will review now and reply there ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

{{done}} ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ranveer Singh (Author)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi @TheresNoTime:, Hi recently you had deleted the article which I mentioned above with the reason of SPEEDY DELETE G7/U1 but this CSD tag was done by me. That tag was not done by that article creator nor the nominator. Fade258 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The author themselves edited the page with "Please delete" after the AFD was opened. Joseywales1961 also was the one who placed the tag, not you. Perhaps you had an edit conflict. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fade258: Thanks for your message - the article Ranveer Singh (Author) was tagged as a G7 by Joseywales1961 after the author (Diasporic Sikh) added the word "delete" ^{admin link}. I did a batch delete of the G7/U1 category after reviewing the validity of its members. Oddly, it doesn't look like you ever edited Ranveer Singh (Author), nor is the tag in your CSD log? Perhaps you both tried to make an edit at the same time, as Ferret suggested

~TNT (she/her • talk) 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret and TheresNoTime, Thank you for your response. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Fade258 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem at all!

Many thanks for helping keep Wikipedia tidy! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 15:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

North Dakota State Bison wrestling copyvio

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I thought it was all the intermediate edits that got nuked with these. (I think you only got rid of the one that introduced the copyvio.) I'll readily admit that I don't know the proper protocol, though, having only interacted with a few copyvios. Thanks. --mathieu ottawa (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mathieu ottawa: Yes, it's normally all intermediate edits up to but not including the removal. However, that is also a case where revdel may be unecessary; it is only 712 bytes and unless it is reinserted, revdel would be a bit excessive in the eyes of most copyright admins. Sennecaster (Chat) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Thanks. --mathieu ottawa (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of newly created page / "Smart Design"

I understand you recently flagged a page I had created for speedy deletion, and/or acted on that flag and deleted the page. The page in question was Smart Design, which had been flagged as being subject to "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Having now re-read the policy, I find it hard to square the description with the content in question, which I felt was (and was certainly intended to be) written in a neutral and encyclopediatic style, with multiple references from a range of sources. I had created the page in the past few days ago as I had been looking up something related, and been surprised to find that there was no page covering this topic; a previous version of the page had existed (and been similarly deleted due to G11) almost a decade ago - I have no idea why that would have been so, having not read that page (it may well indeed have been promotional!), but it seems odd to have this newly written page removed immediately after writing it. I work in the design industry - but not at the company in question, and have no ties to the firm - and believe it to be a clearly notable entity that should be represented on Wikipedia.

a) Would you be able to clarify what was inappropriate about the content? Why did you feel that speedy deletion was the best response, rather than highlighting issues with the page in a discussion?

b) Is there a process to contest the deletion?

c) Can you share with me the deleted content, so that I can review what was there and re-write portions of it if necessary?

Thanks,

Dotx3 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dotx3: The article has been restored to Smart Design. It needs some attention as it does read fairly promotionally, but given the tagger (Barrettmagic) has been blocked as compromised, this was perhaps a bad tag. Apologies ~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the response and restoring the page. I'm curious if there were specific parts that read as promotional to you - happy to make edits as necessary, or to just let the page exist for a bit and "let Wikipedia happen to it" as other editors tweak and tinker and hopefully contribute additional facts and content to the page over time.

Dotx3 (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, TheresNoTime. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Sjö (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: Many thanks, just received it - looking now ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 17:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletions, but you might want to delete the edit comments with identifiable names. Sjö (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: Ah, thanks - I've protected the talk page too seeing as another IP added something ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 18:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

{{done}} ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 23:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from Tweardy (12:52, 24 October 2021)

How do I enter a new person into Wikipedia --Tweardy (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tweardy: Hi Tweardy, welcome to Wikipedia! There's a bit to learn before you set off creating a new article - I'd really recommend going through our tutorial first. Once you've got to grips with things, you should use the article wizard to create your first article ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 12:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection of Adam and Eve

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi, Sam. :) I noticed that you protected Adam and Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for two weeks. That article was already under PC, and its only problematic edits since the 12th were by a single IP today who stopped after receiving their third warning. Would you consider returning it to pending changes? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Tamzin, I lean heavy on semi-protection when 87 43 of the most recent 100 edits are reverts 😅 especially when the previous, which expired ~5 months ago, was for 1 year... I think two weeks is pretty lenient there! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 02:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The past 100 edits take us back to May 23. That's 0.27 vandalistic edits a day, and a lower frequency still if you cluster by burst of vandalism (2 edits here, 3 there). This sort of case, where vandalistic edits are a high percentage of edits overall, but also coming at a relatively slow rate, is what PC was enabled to handle. And I say that as someone who thinks PC is misapplied more often than not. (I gave up on checking Special:PendingChanges when it became flooded with updates to tables on niche subjects.) I acknowledge that there's been disruption on this article, but I think an adequate anti-abuse measure was already in place, one which leaves more room for IPs and new users to contribute constructively. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We'll see how it looks when the semi-protection expires, but I'm not going to modify the protection in this case, sorry

WP:AN is your route of appeal on that ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 02:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Much appreciated. :) Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome (pun intended) ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 03:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Rita

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello, thanks for your help at Hurricane Rita. However, I noticed that the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection which expired only a short time ago. The page has been an LTA target for quite some time now. Would you please look through the page's protection history and consider making the semi-protection longer? Thanks. Clintonan (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Clintonan: I've upped it a bit, currently looking at an edit filter ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 22:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The three week semi-protection you changed it to is still significantly shorter than the previous protection of three months. Can you please make the protection longer? Clintonan (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware, I chose it

we can't indefinitely protect the article because of one LTA, so other measures will be used ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 02:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi User talk:Oswaldian continuously and excessively disrupt this page Hurricane Ivan. Kindly look into it. thank you -- Robertjamal12 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

{{done}} ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 00:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from Oncll (18:10, 19 October 2021)

I joined because of an error in a specific article. I am interested in that being corrected. How do I get back to that page to do that correction? --Oncll (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oncll: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! What was the name of the article? You can search for it in the search box in the top right of the Wikipedia website, or by clicking here ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	3 cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Aw, thank you!

"Assuming good faith" sometimes just means assuming that the person you're disagreeing with does genuinely believe they're trying to improve things. I forget that as much as the rest of us, I can assure you ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 12:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You blocked me from Oliver Emanuel

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} You blocked my accounts from editing Oliver Emanuel despite the fact that I was editing it and protecting it in order to remove Biographies of Living Persons content that contravenes GDPR right to be forgotten.

Please allow me and only me to edit the page for a day and then I will leave the page alone and not edit anything else on Wikipedia. I promise not to edit any other pages, but I need satisfaction. I need to exercise my legal right to remove GDPR violating content from the public Internet.

Please do not stop me from doing so. The next step is a formal complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation User:Jimbo Wales.

I am having to use Proxy because you blocked my real IP. Do not block this IP, allow me to edit the Oliver Emanuel page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.145.8 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP, hopefully you read this - please contact the WMF via the details provided in the privacy policy, noting namely the part which reads "If you are an individual located in the United Kingdom, and have questions about your personal data or would like to request to access, update, or delete it [...]" which gives the email UKrepresentative.Wikimedia

twobirds.com. Many thanks ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Once Again Vandalism on Nazia Hassan Page

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} As you know Wikipedia protected Nazia Hassan page to stop vandalism but once again the same user Kasim8999 started vandalism on the page. They don't have authentic source and editing again and again something proves bad intention of the user. Kindly protect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arezhas98 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFPP ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 22:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)