Not a bot, but then again that's exactly what a bot would say so... 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 74.73.224.126! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 74.73.224.126, I'd have pinged you, but that works only for accounts. Just for your information, Special:Diff/1087616282. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, in the future you can just use {{talkback}} if further input from me is desired. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have briefly mentioned a comment of yours in a longer post I made at ANI concerning Andrew Davidson. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Thanks for the pointer. I was trying to stay away for a bit, and it seems I've succeeded. I don't think I would've commented again in that thread anyway since I'm trying follow the precept suggested by DGG of limiting my responses in discussions that are contentious rather than collaborative, though of course some discussions have elements of both which can make application in practice tricky. Anyway I don't think our positions are that far apart but I'll expound on that in a bit when I have more time. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: WP:NOTPUNISHMENT is simply an interpretation of existing policy, albeit one that is referenced by it directly. Hence, while the blocking and banning policies are explicit about not being punitive, the case with other sanctions is more murky, and policy isn't always strictly adhered to anyway. Ultimately the Arbitration Committee can do what it dares to do, and it has dared quite a bit. That aside, and not meaning to rub salt in any wounds here, WP:ADMINCOND revocations can be justified as preventing future poor conduct by an administrator. I'm quite confident that if queried all the arbitrators would frame their votes to impose sanctions as preventive in every single case. Whether or not they really were preventive is likely to remain a point of disagreement in many instances.

In the end nothing is written in WP:STONE not even core policies. Hence, consensus can do whatever it wants. Could we sanction punitively? Yes. Should we? No. For the most part I think we're pretty good about this, but as always there are exceptions. Be well, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker of English, don't know a thing about styleguides, you can tell me anything, but many reviewed, and didn't see what bothers you. Tell me one editor with the need to edit "Bach". -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I apologize for not getting back to you earlier, I'm mostly inactive these years so hopefully I have your understanding.

I wouldn't worry about being a non-native speaker, indeed it's common for non-native speakers have a better explicit understanding of grammar than native speakers do.

As for the MoS, as with other guidelines it's supposed to be a collection of best practices (as always in practice this varies and some subpages have very little consensus behind them). That aside, WP:NOPIPE is not solely about editing the text within the link (though I would caution you really can never be sure that something will never need to be edited) but about easing the process of scanning a wikitext paragraph as a whole as part of the editing process.

FAC review has never been perfect in catching all issues, even those with our own internal protocols. Indeed, the quality of reviews has varied substantially over time, and there's a good deal many FAs that should never have been passed even for GA (an initiative to review old FAs is currently in progress). But even with careful review issues can still slip through; even professional editors are imperfect. Around that same time I can remember seeing a random IP remove a rather embarrassing category error from a different TFA that no one else managed to catch. It happens. Never assume that just because an article has passed FAC that it's free from any issues.

Having rambled on the a bit, I want to add that these are mostly minor things, and it was a pleasant read so I appreciate the effort that went in to the article. I'm going to try to do a little bit of work around here this week so hopefully any additional follow-ups will be more prompt. I've actually been meaning to WP:PAYITFORWARD for a bit here, but stuff like AfD is quite time consuming to do right, and requires a bit of extra energy and an ability to follow up.

I hope your doing well. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Go ahead, I understand the part about being busy all too well, travelling some these days. How I am is on my talk, - feel free to check. How about editing under a name I could perhaps remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: editing as an IP is kind of my thing, someone has to do it, you'll know me by my deeds etc. I'm glad to see you're still producing quality content and finding joy in it. May your travels be pleasant. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Gerda, you should consider (or re-consider) getting an account. It's quick, it's easy, it's free, it can still be anonymous, it's provides several benefits, there's really no downside, and it makes interacting with you easier for your fellow editors. - wolf 00:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Well in my case you would need to add a lot of re-s to that consider.

I grant most of your points, though in fact there are some downsides. So yes accounts are usually more anonymous, and long-term interactions are easier. There's some additional nifty gadgets available (but I've built some applets of my own), and you have the opportunity to accrue social capital with time.

Yet, it would conflict with my ideals, however dated they may be, and at least to me would feel incredibly unfaithful. There's also a meta page that kind of explains things, and an old essay that touches on some additional considerations. Anyway, I'm only minimally active, so it probably doesn't matter for practical purposes anyway. I appreciate your concern though; take care, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nival (company) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

~ Chip🐺 16:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

:@ChipWolf: "I can see the block evasion, and the other user's edits clearly falls under the definition of vandalism; but please don't edit war, even with suspected vandals"

- but two of the listed exemptions from 3RR are "block evasion" and "obvious vandalism", so why warn an against performing edits that apprear to be permitted, and are perhaps even helpful? - wolf 22:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Thanks for your comment; in terms of the obvious vandalism exception, I'm still under the impression the removed sentence leaned promotional rather than encyclopedic, certainly not obvious vandalism. My comments below elaborate on the block evasion element. ~ Chip🐺 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting obvious spam is also a listed exemption to 3RR, currently at EX8. That's actually an extremely recent addition, for many years it was simply understood to be part of the vandalism exception and no one batted an eye at continuous reverts of spammers. There's sufficient ambiguity here that I would not have personally relied on that exemption, but I also most certainly would not have filed an ANEW on someone over it either. In any case, in your initial post you wrote the other IP's edits fall under the definition of vandalism which explains Thewolfchild's confusion over your warning. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChipWolf: I strongly suggest reviewing WP:Edit warring#EX3. Normally I'd leave it at that, but given I linked WP:BANREVERT in the edit summary the presence of this template suggests a level of inattentiveness that does not bode well for long-term success in RCP work. Now I get that semi-automated tools make it super easy to leave template messages, but it's important to ignore the urge to move too quickly when doing RCP and strive for accuracy instead. Remember that bad reverts and poorly chosen or inappropriate messages have the potential to WP:BITE and discourage potentially productive new contributors, so it's best to avoid placing them.

Of course we all make mistakes every now and then, but when you do so it's considered best practice to encase the poorly chosen message with <s>...</s> or <del>...</del> and to add a polite apology you can start by doing that here (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments is also good reading). Finally, you should be aware that long-term careless use of semi-automated tools can result in your use of them being restricted or even a block.

I may have some time this week if you have any further inquiries, but even if not I will try to respond eventually; it may just take a few months; take care, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally refrain from templating regulars for precisely this reason, that particular principal seemed to have alluded me on Monday - I will heed your kind advice. The reverts you made referring to WP:BANREVERT at 16:01 and 16:12 were both prior to the IP block at 16:19; how does WP:BANREVERT apply to those edits? Admittedly, I'm aware the policy applies to your third revert as it was 40 seconds after the block, so I redact my claim of edit-warring with sincere apologies. ~ Chip🐺 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChipWolf: There's no requirement to wait until a sock has been blocked to revert them. In fact some socks are never blocked because their edits aren't noticed until long after they've ceased using a particular IP or account. I actually reported the IP to WPOP based on the sockmaster's MO a few minutes after my initial reverts [1], and before I noticed their older mainspace disruption which ironically I probably wouldn't have caught had they not returned to pointlessly disrupting archives (ended up being somewhat of a two for one since the continuing disruption motivated me to do additional checks allowing me to catch some earlier edits [2] despite their crude attempts at filter log flooding.)

I was not expecting them to continue using the same IP as they usually shift proxies more rapidly, which is why I was content to wait on the longer response time at WPOP. However when disruption under that IP resumed I filed a report at AIV which was actioned in just two minutes [3]. The key of course is that this was obvious block-evasion, not necessarily obvious to an outsider, but obvious enough to anyone familiar with the LTA that there was no doubting who was responsible.

Ultimately it depends on how obvious the sockmaster is, if you're going to BANREVERT you better be prepared to explain yourself if an ANEW is filed. BMN123 lacks subtlety so I was comfortable reverting here; there are also a lot of others (e.g. VXFC) that are also pretty obvious once you've dealt with them a few times. In other cases it may be neccessary to wait on the outcome of an ANI or even SPI prior to reverting; as always RCP requires discretion and judgement. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slight asides

• If you're looking for a template that's less harsh in tone I suggest {{uw-ewsoft}}.
• 3RR warnings are one of the cases where templating regulars is commonplace as a warning diff is an ANEW reporting expectation
• 40 seconds isn't really that short a time to notice something depending on how someone does their monitoring, using the right tools someone who is actively paying attention can notice things within a matter of seconds.

74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am throwing my huge big apologies please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevelasz (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your first post on your talk page. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might amuse you. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Almustyy/Archive How I hate socks. Thanks for your revert on Rolling Thunder. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm surprised. My sock senses were tingling on that one, but I wasn't sufficiently sure to do anything other than treat them as a struggling new user. Sometimes it feels like for every 100 personal messages you put out there only one finds it's way to a good-faith user who sticks around, but when I have a few minutes I try to write them anyway.

I've long-since reached something of a zen when dealing with the various gadflys that drop by. There's always going to be more of them and our frequent flyers can be swatted away all the more quickly once identified. Just one more facet of the environment that's best dealt with dispassionately. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (74.73.224.126) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you have an ever-expanding wolfpack on your page... - wolf 20:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat of a WP:WikiWolf myself, so I guess it all works out 😎 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! Why are wolves (and not other animals, like us foxes) dominating these days... Tails Wx 02:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied? Seems better, no? 176.159.12.72 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed instructions are at WP:RFDHOWTO. Preferably you should just follow those, however if for some reason you find yourself unable to do so, please let me know, leave your nomination rationale here, and I'll initiate the nomination for you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Grateful to see another IP (third one that's active, honestly) doing good work on Wikipedia! Tails Wx 02:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit more than three of us actually. Off the top of my head I can think of 199.208.172.35, 192.76.8.84, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:0/64, and 47.227.95.73. There's around a half-dozen others I can remember running into as well over the last year or so, though I'd need to peruse some page histories to list them. There was more of a community in the past (I'm talking a looong time ago), and we'd kind of keep on eye on and look at for each other. Sometimes you knew the editing styles so well you could keep track of everyone even as IPs changed. Not so much now, but Oxford and 99 (aka B0b) are pretty hard to miss. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can add 59.149.117.119 and 73.67.145.30 to the tally, their numbers eluded me earlier. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More constructively-editing IPs, huh? Maybe I'll create a page for a list of good-working IPs! Tails Wx 20:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well most IP edits are constructive, but there aren't too many of us that are around for the long-term. Still even today the size of the community is larger than it may appear at first glance; many exopedian types make steady content improvements while attracting minimal attention, and the increasingly dynamic nature of IP addresses along with the growth of mobile editing means makes us harder to notice in general. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also came across your edits and wanted to thank you for your efforts on improving Wikipedia! If I may ask, why do you choose to stay anonymous? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of both habit and principle. There's a meta page that kind of explains things, and an old essay that covers some additional points. We all have our own reasons of course, but a good deal of other long-term IP editors hold broadly similar views, in the end someone has to do it. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburg-Vorpommes Niedersoschka Schleswig-Holbein Zerhammerte Burg Randelhup 46.114.183.104 (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a strong predilection for the abstract. Perhaps in time you will reify your art to become a textual Kandinsky. However, I strongly suggest placing your rough-drafts elsewhere. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove this, it is German long-term abuse. Regards --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, its been here a while, already responded to, and not really abusive per se. No harm in letting it sit. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on the user page deletions. I know that old IP talk pages used to be deleted under U4, but I couldn't recall the same thing happening to register users. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were conducted somewhat analogously to PROD (even if G6 was often used in the deletion log), and no separate CSD entry was ever created, it wasn't listed as an obsolete criteria, and nowhere else was obviously suitable to record it either. It's still quite surprising how poorly documented the whole thing was even at the time, and I'm not sure how anyone would be able to learn about it now aside from inquiring on the right user talk page. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		A gift from one IP address to another. Thanks for all your help. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you as well. I haven't really had the time to contribute at all consistently for many years now; it gladdens me to see others are still carrying the torch forward. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same on my end. I am now coming out of my second pretty long wikibreak, so my editing isn't very consistent either, but hopefully this time I will be here to stay. :) 47.227.95.73 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 2NumForIce. I noticed that you recently removed content from Supper without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 19:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2NumForIce: As a general rule of thumb, I advise reviewing diffs before reverting. Going forward please be less careless with your use of semi-automated tools. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately, I saw the edit was removing content, but you didn't provide an edit summary. The edit summary is helpful to others because they can understand your edit. Thanks! 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 19:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2NumForIce: In fact I did provide an edit summary, not that one was necessary. It was a generic summary, but so was yours. Specifically my edit satisfied RB1, while yours did not; further I wasn't even using rollback but you were. I'll reiterate what I said earlier about careless use of semi-automated tools; I also advise striking your warning above. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2NumForIce: Ya i'm gonna have to agree with IP here. That was a completely inappropriate revert. Just because an edit is removing content without an edit summary does not justify a revert. That edit was obviously vandalism and should not have been restored. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf and 74.73.224.126: You're probably right. I might take a look at the page history, and I will talk to AntiVandal's developer about custom rollback summaries and adding more queue filters. I am sorry about that. 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw your reversion of my speedy. What would the correct code be for a Draft stub that duplicates an existing article? Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, there isn't one, for some background see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Questions re: specific G6 and copy/paste draft scenario. There's also more in the archives.

If the draft was copypasted and more than one editor is responsible then a WP:HISTMERGE is needed unless it's straightforward enough to where a draft can be moved over the mainspace article directly without losing attribution.

If there are no attribution issues I think the best option is to redirect in the spirit of WP:SRE so whoever made the draft is directed to where they should be contributing, it also has the bonus that it prevents other new users from making the same mistake in the future. They can also just be left for G13, although for reasons explained I think redirecting is the better option. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 74, I appreciate your suggestions very much. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 74! Just wanted to say thanks for your comments on my talk page yesterday. I wasn't actually sure if I was completely right in that situation based on the user's comments, and I had already asked another user privately via Discord. Maybe you IPs should create your own cabal. The Cabal of the helpful IPs. /hj ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I got here a bit later than I would have liked but, as they say, better late than never... Just wanted to thank you for taking the time to comment on the issue at hand. While I agree with the substance and, more importantly, the tone of your comments, especially "As a general rule the public sandboxes are best ignored, they have low visibility and bots clear them regularly, so unless it's something particularly egregious just ignore it. Many disruptive editors are really just attention seekers and when feasible denying them attention itself has value." and "The key thing is learning from mistakes and trying to reduce them going forward. When long-term editors are sanctioned what's at issue is not so much making mistakes as refusing to learn from them." I don't wish to feed any trolls, so we'll leave it at that. Be seein' ya! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf and Technopat: And thanks to both of you for being understanding and reading my comments in the spirit of their intention. FosterEachOther remains important and I'm glad that we were all able to work through this without ill feelings and even spread some tangential additional knowledge along the way.

While we're on the subject of tangents, there is an IP group of sorts. Though it's a bit underinclusive since there are a few long-termers I recognize who previously had accounts, but have long-since abandoned them (in at least one case I know of, well over a decade ago) because they were tired of drama or as a protest against the mindset that privileges vested-contributors or some other reason. Perhaps if I have some uninterrupted time (not jesting, I swear I get some every once in a blue-moon) and inspiration strikes I'll draft an appropriately tongue-in-cheek project page and cross my fingers there's a least one AFC reviewer who still has a sense of humor. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tangents is what I likes, especially when they comes with a sense of humour... As an exIP, I wish that said IP group "of sorts" had been around back in the day... Not that I suppose you'll remember by the time the next blue moon comes round, but on the off-chance, may I humbly request a link to your forthcoming tongue-in-cheek project page? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Can do 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did an edit about on a page about an educator, and multiple others have tried to add the same and true information about him being a harsh grader. RateMyProfessor is quite credible, as the person under review cannot influence anything, and troll or hurtful reviews are moderated and removed. I think removing my edit was a mistake, could you let me keep it on there? Thanks MicrowavedSoup (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrowavedSoup: RateMyProfessor is not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP please also review WP:RS. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at Talk:Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic#Type of English tag, looks like TCG again. See also my repeated reverts to that article. I could do it but I'm reluctant to engage any more than I have to because playing whack-a-mole with that editor can boomerang (and I think he knows it and is playing the system accordingly. In this case, IP#1 recategorises the article as Oxford English and then IP#2 claims WP:ENGVAR to change it to their preferred spelling as authorised by Talk:Ruble#Request for comment. So there is no vapour trail for an SPI). Personally I don't care how it is spelt (or spelled). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; yeah that's him I've collapsed the section. He may actually have a point, but it's better if we start a thread free of sock disruption, and just ping everyone previously involved. I'll look into a bit later since I need to look over the case of a different sockmaster first so I can help write up an LTA report. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt go to collage for political theory like me so please back down and understand your place in this work. 2603:8090:E03:ABF5:19A4:2D43:4EF8:6759 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to review WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE as well as WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:LEAD. If you still disagree please start a discussion on the talk page. Your qualifications, real or imagined, are irrelevant here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(and maybe have a look at WP:CIVIL as well. sheesh.... (jmho) - wolf 06:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, i was editing this page because i just saw the teenage superstar documentary and i never knew why no one added the information that his former band the pretty flowers is formerly named child molesters and that everything flows, the concept, what you do to me and mellow doubt weren’t added as one of his loved songs in teenage fanclub. I can’t reference the name child molesters but the documentary teenage superstar went and covered the band’s history and its name. Reedmarus (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedmarus: That's fine please just WP:CITE your sources when adding material to a WP:BLP. See Help:Referencing for beginners. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i cannot seem to cite the documentary part where they talk about the pretty flowers. Reedmarus (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedmarus: you're going to have to be more specific than that. Is the issue that you don't have access to the source, or that you can't get the citation to work in show preview, or something else? 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have access to the source Reedmarus (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedmarus: No worries, WP:There is no deadline. As the note at the top of the page says I'm around in on-and-off doses, so once you line up your sources and are ready to go, it's best if you direct your questions to the WP:Teahouse (may want to bookmark that one). Be well, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVED WARNING Notrealname1234 (talk)

@Notrealname1234: please check diffs before reverting in the future, care should always be exercised when using semi-automated tools, thanks. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did and it is vandalism. Dont put speedy deletion templates in talk page archives. @74.73.224.126 Notrealname1234 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrealname1234: The page is not an archive, it's spam, that's why you need to check the page history and diffs, do I need to ping a sysop, because if you can't recognize that you probably should not be using semi-automated tools to do RCP. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert the edit, i forgot to check it, thanks for warning me. Notrealname1234 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, so long as you recognize that it is in fact spam, you should also strike your warning above. Everyone gets it wrong once in a while, but try to prioritize accuracy over speed. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrealname1234: Also for future reference, you don't need to ping people on their own talk page, and unregistered users can't be pinged anyway. But if you need to direct my attention somewhere, {{talkback}} still works fine. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that works too. Don't run across duplicate drafts much, so wasn't aware of redirect being a valid alternative. Cheers, Zinnober9 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, always something new to learn around here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you will notice in any event but an FYI just out of courtesy: I have copied your contribution at my talk page over to a new discussion at talk:Runes#Discussion. Thanks. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note of admiration for your ability to keep the focus on the essential principle and not allow yourself to get sucked into detail. (I so wanted to point to the Google ngram that shows that, in the en-uk corpus, the modern spelling overtook the archaic one in 1920 and the latter is vanishingly rare this century. But, as you say, it is incidental.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I could easily point to an old userpage revision that shows Swiss-German academics sometimes write recognize or familiarize, but it's irrelevant. Personally I'd prefer if this were one of those things everyone could just agree to not examine too closely, since while some editors who are style purists really care that the English variety be consistent throughout an article, our readers almost uniformly don't. But since we can't seem to manage that, just try to guide people through the process with as little disruption as can be managed. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ned price is not Jewish stop vandalizing Wikipedia 213.233.108.202 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your earlier comment at Talk:Ned Price, please focus discussion there, thank you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great work as IP. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 74.73.224.126 (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know why Danial Bass (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They'll probably be back, next time you should be able to just report them to WP:AIV for immediate resumption of disruption so they can be blocked as quickly and efficiently as possible. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, I've never done that but will try Danial Bass (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to request page protection, you can go to WP:RFP, twinkle should make filing a report there easy. In addition directly dropping a note at User talk:Discospinster should also be an option to request assistance. I'm going to be on wikibreak here very soon, so I probably won't be able to pitch in much for the next month or so. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure then, I was trying to find the link for this. Thanks Danial Bass (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've decided to help you out and mass-reverted the latest edits from that IP range that has edit summaries looking very similar to that of TheCurrencyGuy's previous socks (e.g. "Replace unlinked code with linked pound sign").

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, there's a few additional non-current edits that can still be easily reverted using the undo link that I'm getting to in between some other work, makes for pretty easy multi-tasking. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 74.73.224.126 (as I'm sure you know, some o' my best wikifriends are IPs)! Thanks for the update. Unfortunately, duck season seems never-ending... Gr8 for them folks that likes Duck à l'orange or Peking duck, but for those of us who are allergic to canards, merely pesky. Cheers, be seein' ya! Technopat (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They do come in so many different varieties don't they, but you know it's always nice to dine with friends. Anyway, thanks for your help. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "... help", likewise. Re dining with friends, I actually get just as much pleasure from a simple green salad (provided the olive oil is good)... it's the company that counts. Don't know how genetically related they are to each other, but they do seem to have an uncanny knack of cloning(?)... But don't let 'em get you down! --Technopat (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter, named or numerical, tool or no tool. As long as it's constructive, it's constructive. Also sorry for reverting your rvv, should've looked into the edit more. Just be bold and do it (including others on this IP!)

2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we all make mistakes, myself very much included, glad to have your help. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle, which you might be interested in. 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 21:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 21:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Oh I know all about that already, been a member for a long time now, in fact I think I've linked it a few times above, but it's good that knowledge is spreading around; don't be afraid to keep passing on the word, some may know about it but others may not, thanks. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Next time you need to remove substantial amounts of content from a user/user talk page, including in the summary the word "undo", "revert", or "rv" will let you bypass that filter. It looks like an admin took care of the edits. Thanks for your help! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: hmmm, that probably was the issue in the first case, where I was more concerned with leaving an explanatory message with the ping than explaining the rather obvious edit. In the second case I'm fairly confident I did use the undo link, possibly with an rvv thrown in there.

It's all actually a touch odd since MajavahBot didn't tag the report with private even though I didn't see any public filters triggered, in fact I deliberately triggered it again just in case there was a public filter that wasn't showing up in the log as expected from the bot's lack of commentary and no dice. In hindsight probably just an issue with the bot that needs to be addressed, but it is what it is. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this before I saw the second case. I already asked for the filter owner in the second case to consider adding a similar feature. (You triggered a different filter then.) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help back there! 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could help. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the stalker warning.

My discussion page here at en.wiki was created by a user who vandalized pt.wiki, where I am an editor. Elder N (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elder N: The template is actually just to announce why I was the one responding to your request and not Blaze Wolf. But yes I tagged that page for speedy deletion, and thanks to LilianaUwU it's now been recreated with a proper welcome. The user responsible has been indefinately blocked; if they return just report them to WP:AIV for block-evasion 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for everything you do 98.235.155.81 who originally started out as vandal also became an anti-vandal and so did I 98.235.155.81 has been improving really well with edits like he was told by Ponyo he and I are friends. 2601:981:4401:1CC0:10D5:634:BC3C:F022 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! 2601:981:4401:1CC0:10D5:634:BC3C:F022 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you want to help out, and some former vandals have gone on to do great things. It does look like you're still struggling a bit overall; this is a vast, complicated, and often confusing place with a rather steep learning curve, so I certainly won't censure you over that. At the same time problems created unintentionally are still problems, so I hope you will understand recent sysop actions in that light; it's not personal, nor intended to be a judgement on your character.

Wikibreaks, even enforced ones, can be a chance to gain perspective, and Wikipedia is more sustainable for most people in doses anyway. You can still lurk, read, and observe as you please. In the grand scheme of things one year really isn't that long, but if you desire to return earlier, carefully review WP:GAB, and emphasize that you intend to take it slow, and will try to work closely with experienced editors until you acquire more proficiency. Even if you decide to go that route, don't appeal for a few months at least, staying away for some period of time helps to demonstrate self-discipline which is a factor that a reviewing sysop is bound to consider. Take care, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've left a comment at talk:New York City Subway § Ridership figures that you may be interested in. Shells-shells (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]