Previous · Index · Next

Jump-to links
2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

Template:Non-English-language external links category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you that you created the page for Leon Merian. There was a template to expand the discog. but I couldn't find very much to add. The article is thin on content, but that may be because there's not much written about the subject. To me it makes more sense to create articles about notable people, because notable have been written about and therefore editors can get information from those written sources. The more obscure a person is, the less likely sources will exist, and the more likely the article will be deleted, in which case you have wasted your time and others'. If I were to create an article, which I haven't done often, I would first ask not, "Is this person important?" but "Is there enough published information out there to write an article of substance?" To avoid asking this question first is to engage in a kind of fairly tale wishful thinking and belief in magical people who will show up to do our work for us. Notable people don't require a lot of hunting for sources. That's a clue for notability. There over 27,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz, over 4000 on the Cleanup Listing, and most of the work is being done by two of us. There are many more articles which need work but which haven't been tagged. Even articles without tags aren't that great. I've tried to do my best, but if we are going to make progress, I'm going to need cooperation. People should not make deletion discussions a fight to the death. Nor should they create article after article, or red link after red link, about people who are not notable and whose articles will likely never be written or expanded. It's not hard to tell from the first moment whether a person is notable or not. Jazz purchases make up less than one percent of the music industry, less than classical, so in a real sense all jazz musicians are obscure. I would like to see people try to work together rather than be content with "doing their own thing". If you have any more articles like Leon Merian that you created, I suggest you take a look at them, add sources to them, clean them up, improve them, or propose that they be deleted. Given that the jazz backlog goes back twelve years, this is a good time to consider who is being helped by the endless creation of jazz articles that will never be written. I believe no one is helped by that, but if you want to help, I can give you some ideas.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you can often determine that someone is notable it is very hard to tell if someone is not notable. Google is not the last word, a huge quantity of information is behind walls of one kind or another.

This article is important because it was part of a project to capture pseudonyms. Other aspects of the peoples lives come from other sources, but where I have created an article I have attempted to provide multiple sources.

In this case finding more sources is not hard, I will add some to the article shortly.

As to the human resource issue, it is something I agree with wholeheartedly, research into why this is varies, but the fact that we treat some of our longstanding contributors so badly is probably a big part of it.

I will have a look to see how I can help specifically in the Jjazz arena.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for responding. Many people don't. The internet generations have created a new form of ignoring which is nothing to be proud of. Your comments about notability involve an exaggeration and a contradiction. Given that the same standard is being used, knowing who is notable and who is not notable is more or less the same. I don't understand why in your mind they are separate. We start with a relatively small pool of data: The jazz world is tiny, and relatively speaking it's a world little covered by books, magazines, newspapers, and web sites. Although I agree Google isn't the last word on research, it can be the first word and therefore an indicator of what's available. Moreover, a little bit of common sense helps in addition to a little knowledge of the subject. These tell me a leader is more likely to be notable than a sideman, because more is likely to be written. A baseball comparison might reveal the mistake too many people make. They want to write about the guy who was at bat once in his career rather than the guy who hit all the home runs or who pitched a no-hitter. They feel there is something morally superior about obscurity, and that's who they want to write about and "save" for posterity. As a result, they ignore the important subjects and spend their time on fruitless searches for obscure sources: An album that reached No. 27 on a chart in Finland, a jazz magazine article in Japanese, a dissertation on double bass strings at Arkansas State Community College and Bar & Grill. That isn't research. It's romantic ideation. Someone ought to write a book on impartiality and how to achieve it, because it's an important skill I wish more people had.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the distinction I am drawing is between false positives and false negatives. If you can find the right sources then notability is established. If you can't then either they don't exist or you simply failed to find them.

For phenomena of the last hundred years or so paywalls, either copyright related or de-facto, make access to sources difficult. Even reasonably large library systems "cleanse" their holdings, and unless you work on a narrow area and have funds, buying books is not practical.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

And for God's sake, stop capitalizing "jazz"...
Vmavanti (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I guess I had just been reading too many of our articles... All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Can you write about dpat the music producer Dehyah (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hello, Dehyah, I'm Mathglot. Not sure why you posted this here, but I've responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People ask me to write articles sometimes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Hubcap City albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an LRPP template with one unnamed parameter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nice enjoyment for you Rosalinea190 (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I,m want to create a new page Article Sunny 16:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

What would it be about? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

How do i create a new page Please tell me sir Sunny 18:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

How do i create a new page Please tell me sir Sunny 18:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

Try reading Help:Your first article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I,m create two pages But no show in google Only search in wikipedia website With Draft before page Sunny 19:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

See Draft:Anil Parashar - the page exists, it will need to be submitted for approval. This means that it will be sufficiently good for an established Wikipedian to move from draft to a published page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm want to member of EDIT FILTER MANAGERS Sunny 21:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny bharat (talk • contribs)

Why? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 17:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Rich, hope you don't mind, but I've started to go through your list here: User:Rich Farmbrough/temp238. I figured that since I'm involved with the edit-athons with the Parliament of Religions, I should work on at least a few articles about women religious. Please let me know if I've overstepped, and I will stop. Hope all is well and that you're staying healthy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine (Figureskatingfan) I am delighted! All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 11:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Oh good. I figured I'd start with saints since I'm Catholic and all. ;) Right back at ya! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lotr. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#Lotr until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aeglos (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hog Farm (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that I will be site-banned in the next few minutes, for the crime of doing exactly what I had been asked to do. (I'll add a link to the "discussion" once it is archived.) I'm sure those who wish to will still be able to reach out to me, but I will be logging off Wikipedia to avoid seeing the sequelae of this train-wreck.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the despised and rejected) 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Don't be too quick to think things will turn out that way. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rich: The site-ban discussion looks like it will fail to me, and I hope the train wreck of an ANI thread will be about as minor as an ANI thread can be. There probably will be another editing restriction, but hopefully it will be clearer. Lastly, I know we haven't exactly been friends on-wiki, but I hope you read and find my comments on ANI helpful. Take as long as you want, but I hope to see you around the 'pedia (but hopefully not at WP:HAPPYPLACE). Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, re your sig: come on. You are neither despised nor rejected, at least by me (and many other wikipedians). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I've already changed it. Thank you for your kind words. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
      
  • BRFA requires consensus. I was considering suggesting that I simply ping Beeblebrox in every editing discussion I have. But since disturbing his repose seems to be an unwise choice, perhaps that's not such a great idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    
• Glad to see the tide is turning over there. I definitely got influenced by the initial pile-on at one point but upon digging deeper once again it was clear that you were being railroaded for doing the exact thing you were supposed to do. Hopefully that whole drama fest will be in the rear view mirror shortly. CJK09 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Krystal Klear has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich, in response to your email asking me to strike my comment about you canvassing: no, I’m not going to do that. If you have any other requests of me, I prefer they be made on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are three bad things that happen as a result of you refusal:

1. The project does not know what is happening.
2. An (additional) untruth about me stands on the AN/I page.
3. You fall in my estimation.

It's a shame that you made such a comment, the snide tone makes it worse, the refusal to remove it out of courtesy, worse still.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the despised and rejected) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Just a reminder: if you just followed the community sanctions, you wouldn't be in this mess. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MiasmaEternal I did follow the sanctions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the despised and rejected) 09:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, I obviously don't know the full context here since I haven't read the email, probably one of the reason TonyBallioni opposed your use of it. But I don't understand how any experienced editor does not understand that when there is an active discussion over imposing sanctions which at a minimum still had about 23 hours to go (per the 24 hour minimum), posting this [1] is going to lead to canvassing concerns. Frankly your follow up is not that much better although by that stage, doing anything about it was pointless, even BMK's actions while I don't object to them didn't necessarily make things better. Which is a key part of the reason why canvassing is such a problem, it can't really be undone. I appreciate if you were site banned you'd have no more opportunity to comment although I think many editors won't object to reposting a single message from after any site ban especially if you avoided faulting everyone else in your message.

And this example seems to demonstrate why canvassing even unintentionally, is very silly. You may have meant no harm by it, you may not have thought it would affect the outcome, even though as I said, the discussion still had ~23 hours to go. Yet at least one editor, and probably more, feel it likely has affected the outcome. Under the circumstances of that discussion, it's not unreasonable to feel that, yet it's also easily possible the discussion would have evolved in a similar way if you hadn't posted your message. It's unlikely we'll ever know or even have a good idea, if the discuss would have evolved that way without your (or anyone) posting about it on some Wikiproject.

I think nearly everyone would accept that's how discussions evolve if it had clearly happened inorganically. Maybe some wouldn't be happy with the outcome, but they'd know that's life on Wikipedia. Yet with your posting you've now pretty much ensured that if you escape a siteban, some editors are going to feel it's not only wrong but inherently unfair as part of the reason is because you canvassed people to support you. Even some who may accept it was unintentional may still feel that way.

I'm going to AGF that canvassing to try an avoid a siteban wasn't your intention. So why then did you, an experienced editor, do something which was fairly obviously going to cause a lot of ill-feeling and consternation? And why when someone pointed out what you did, instead of simply acknowledging, yes I messed up badly with that post; do you instead send an email complaining, and then say an "untruth" about you stands at AN/I and I think less of you, even though I was the one who created the situation by posting about an active sanction discussion against me, when it still had 23 hours to go, in a manner which may encourage others to participate, and in a Wikiproject which may not be considered neutral? For the benefit of talk page watched, I'd note that even if you felt that there was justification to post on that Wikiproject because they'd be interested in the outcome, this doesn't explain your message which was in the form of "oh poor me, I'm screwed, bye bye" rather than "you may be interested in this discussion".

Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment. Five points:

• I'll mention that I was unaware that there was a 24 hour limit on these discussions, and expected to be site banned or indef blocked imminently.
• It has always been wikiquette not to mention emails on-wiki. I emailed Tony because I thought it would be less combative than asking him on-wiki and allow him time to reflect on whether this was a reasonable thing to say. I still think it looks like deliberate poisoning of the well, and it would be nice for him to remove it.

Here is the text of my email.

Tony I would appreciate it if you would strike your comment about canvassing. I think it is fairly obvious that I am resigned to my fate, and it seems courtesy to leave a note to explain why the project will not be completed.

• You say that someone would be glad to post a message on my behalf. Last time i was blocked there was a strong suggestion that such action would be considered proxying and be blockable in itself. (In fact the implication was the blocking constitutes an expulsion from the community, and that no one should respond to user talk page messages.)
• It is always possible to be collegial and AGF. For example Tony could have left me a message here asking me to refactor my comment on the Wikiproject talk page. He could even have said "Rich has left this message which appears to be canvassing." Instead he chose to leave a sarcastic comment, which is uncalled for and uncivil.
• I have, as soon as I was aware of the concern, refactored the comment on the project talk page. It's highly unlikely that anyone saw the text in question who wasn't part of the AN/I discussion.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the despised and rejected) 09:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Please see the close of the ANI discussion on your editing restrictions. Especially note that the clarification of what is meant by consensus has been formally logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. SpinningSpark 14:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I didn't get 20 people supporting the changes, because I'd now require 40! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

If you just needed to vent after a stressful situation I understand. However, since I wrote the basis of the language that got enacted I will tell you my thinking. My goal was not to set some outrageous bar for you to clear; on the contrary it was to make clear where the bar is. It seemed to me that 10 was the smallest number that would then prevent people from saying you didn't have enough participation for mass editing. I am sure we both love to see there be no future drama with you and that was my goal with that proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49 You are probably right in that this is relatively clear language, which is a good thing. I never thought that it was intended to be an outrageous bar, nor that you (or even most of the people who voted for a ban) had any ill intent.

If you posit, as many people seemed to agree, that I did comply with the editing restriction (itself a product of - from my point of view, uniformed and knee jerk AN/I shenanigans) you get the following scenario.

Someone got annoyed, and took someone else to AN/I when they had done nothing wrong. A whole bunch of resolutions were proposed, in a tangled mess. One is passed, albeit probably the mildest, and with only a few !votes. Result: an incremental loss of freedom.

Repeat this enough times and all freedom to edit is gone, by a sort of Maxwell's Demon process.

If you think this unlikely, bear in mind that the editing restriction that is being modified here was as a result of a previous AN/I (again without an attempt to discuss on my talk page) where it transpired that I had not broken an editing restriction previous to that.

The annoying thing is if the editor that kicked this off had said here that he didn't like his watchlist being lighted up, I would have happily agreed to limit this job to a few hundred edits per day, and we would have both been happy - and maybe even continued to consider each other as "reasonably nice guys".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate hearing your perspective on the matter. Counterfactuals are interesting thought exercises - maybe you're right that if it had been discussed with you it plays out like it does. Or maybe given the history between you two the discussion makes things worse in a different way and we still end up with ANI. A different counterfactual would be what if you had done this at a slower rate so that you noticed that the problems and didn't need to make multiple batches of edits to so many pages? Maybe that too stops things from going to ANI or maybe it still ends up there with people taking issue with the Cities discussion.

I would suggest you reframe this latest close away from freedom. By your reasoning because I have no restriction on me I would be free to make mass changes that you are not free to make. I don't think that's right; I think if I were to have made identical Cities edits to you (which I couldn't do because I cannot manually edit as fast as you can) I think I end up getting at least a warning if not a deysop. Instead the freedom we all have, and the freedom you and I both still enjoy, is the opportunity to edit with-in the consensus of the community. So rather than a loss of freedom this is an opportunity to know what that consensus is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People are surprising, groups of people more so, sometimes and less so others. However I am the expert on myself, and would certainly have been prepared to consider a special situation where someone editing in the same area was suffering due my edit rate. I'm not short of projects to work on, though I do like to get them completed where possible. Indeed I have in the past gone to great lengths to avoid upsetting other editors.

The curiosity is that the "history between us two", as far as I am aware only goes back to January, the first time I lit his watchlist up. He is saying elsewhere I think that we have had many clashes or words to that effect. There was possibly a disagreement about an ISBN 10 years ago, but I'm not sure if the was Beeblebrox or someone else.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I only looked at the results now. While ANI is never pleasant, in a way I'm glad that it turned out this way, because it came close to heavier sanctions. Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Please take more care when making edits like this. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]