Male user:Lettherebedarklight/sandbox

Male user:Lettherebedarklight/sandbox/?h

thank you to the two of you who laughed at this joke



use without caution



Results 1 – 33 of 33

obligatory userboxes


User:Peridon/Userboxes/fief User:Wikipedian192/Cluttered Male user:Lettherebedarklight/userboxes/wiki User:UBX/Selfref-3 User:OlEnglish/Crooked userbox

This page is under destruction.

Template:Wdefcon Male user:Lettherebedarklight/userboxes/mood User:Just some random dude with a pc/cat. User:Σ/UBX/AntiWikipetan


User:BEEFITRON/Userboxes/Citation Needed User:UBX/customer service User:UBX/Super lazy vandal Male user:Lettherebedarklight/userboxes/sandboxes

 No user-serviceable parts inside.
insaneThis user is relatively insane and will stab you when you sleep

User:ANNAfoxlover/Userboxes/User one-half Template:User all hope User:UBX/more userboxes User:UBX/templates User:Kayau/Bite you User:Forteshadow/Nonexistent User:Offiikart/ubx/recycledmatter

User:Strdst grl/ubx/badtypist User:UltrasonicMadness/Userboxes/Bumper stickers User:Googleguy007/Userboxes/ANI Is Fun User:Owynhart/Userboxes/No chirality User:Editor510/Chili User:Nihiltres/Userboxes/Friendly User:Strdst grl/ubx/mandelbrot User:UBX/User cucumber watermelon taste alike Template:User superfan User:Armando12/Userboxes/User bomb

 Sometimes, this user is ignorant and stupid, sadly, not for tactical reasons.

User:Adolphus79/UBX/Druck-wine User:NeccsUserboxes/Userboxes/Hot as fire User:Regregex/User end control-D

Template:Hat This is literally not a genocide. Trans people aren't a minority ethnic group that is being killed systemically. This whole "trans genocide" term is disrespectful to those who were victims of real genocide. (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This is addressed in reliable sources (many of which explicitly argue for the expansion of the definition of genocide) and in the article itself. This page is for discussion of the article, not of your personal grievances with the topic. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The word "genocide" should be replaced with a word that actually fits considering the definition has yet to be changed. Perhaps it would be prudent to re-label the article as "Discrimination against Transgender People"? Genocide specifically deals with nationalities and ethnic groups, not gender. It feels like people are trying to just stick a buzzword in without a reason to. 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah Thaddeus when you change the definition of a word - IT CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF THAT WORD.
So you use the new definition of the word while relying relying on readers to use the actual definition of the word.
It's It's sneaky slimy tactic I see more and more these days and apparently you aren't smart enough to see through it. 2001:8003:7CCB:A901:AD7E:5F5F:EC47:C80 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Mentally ill dudes changing definitions of words, who would have thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no trans genocide going on anywhere on the planet. This page is incredibly disrespectful and is based on the fantasies of mentally ill people on Twitter. (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

If there’s a reliable source that argues this (trans g) is not a genocide, or that it’s disrespectful to other victims, that source and its main points can be put in the article ProfGray (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there is already a word that describes what this article is attempting to call genocide. How about Transgendercide? There doesn't appear to be a rational reason to expand the definition of genocide. A quick look at the Oxford dictionary shows that the word has greek origins, genos + cide, with 'genos' literally meaning race and the suffix '-cide' denoting an act of killing. I attached a link to a wikipedia page on Gendercide, which seems to fit this article perfectly. 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you arguing that there was never a genocide of jewish people in World War 2 because being Jewish is not a race but a religion? also being transgender is not a gender, there are both transgender men, transgender women and transgender non-binaries thus it don't exactly fit the gendercide definition as it wouldn't target a single gender. Some happenstances of gendercide could have transphobic motivations and thus fit within the scope of transgender genocide, but certainly not all of them. (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Jews are an ethnoreligious group, as stated in the first line of their wikipedia entry. This is why the term 'genocide' applied to the Holocaust:
Transgender people are not a race, a nationality, or an ethnic group. They are identified by being gender non-conforming. As such, the word Gendercide is much more fitting than the word genocide. Discrimination against them is specifically due to gender nonconformance.
If you would like to argue that Transgender people are somehow a race, a nationality, or an ethnic group, then that should be included in this wikipedia entry to justify the use of 'genocide'. As of right now, it just looks like the wrong word is being deliberately used for nebulous reasons. 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If there’s a reliable source that argues your point, then that point can be added to the encyclopedia.
If you are trying to better understand the application of the concept of genocide to transgender people, I suggest you start with the Kidd/Wittern, Kritz, and Eichert sources in the article. ProfGray (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
As stated in their own works, they admit that the definition of genocide needs to be expanded for what they personally as activists consider to be a genocide. The word Gendercide already exists to describe what they've observed. You can't prove a negative, so asking for a source repeatedly is incredibly bad faith. This is a simple case of blatant misuse of a word, conceivably to score political points. 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, some admit that the legal defintion would need to be expanded: for that context, the article is about their proposed application of genocide. But some folks do not think they need to wait for a legal determination or expansion, they are applying the concept without confirmation of the law, because the use of concepts and discourse are not actually bound by or enforced by law. There's no law against using a concept like genocide in various realms of discourse, and that's what the reliable sources here are doing. I suppose I need not repeat my point about the ability to bring up reliable sources that dispute this usage, but it's important for readers (of my comments) to understand how Wikipedia functions and is written. You may think they are misusing a word, the question is whether we can find reliable sources to make that point and then put it in the "criticism" section. ProfGray (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Jews have specific genes, which is why its a *geno*-cide. There is no evidence transsexuality/transgenderism is genetic in any way. SlimyKlerburt (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Causes of gender incongruence#Genetics Tjf801 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The term "genocide" does not literally require shared genes. Case in point, the UN definition of genocide explicitly covers religious groups, like Jews. You can convert to Judaism. You don't have to be genetically related to other Jews to be a Jew. Loki (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Jews are absolutely a race, we admit that we are and I can't imagine why we would shy away from that. We have a nation-state of our own built around Jewish ethnic identity. So no, genocide does not fit here. Especially since the actual issue at hand is not the systemic murder of Trans people, but suicide. We don't call the mass-suicide of white men in the Midwest a "genocide"... ConstantineChase (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If there’s a reliable source that argues your point, then that point can be added to the encyclopedia. ProfGray (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


The result of the discussion was no consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No incoming links; user hasnt contributed for 6 years. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • keep. Exactly what benefit do you see will be accrued from deletion here? Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meaningless, useless, worthless. In a word, junk. Don't encourage junk. — Scott talk 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Calling a redirect names is inadequate rationale for deletion. This is not a "really harmful" redirect. There is nothing here that supports deletion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - even if they haven't been a while, productive users should be given a lot of freedom to play around with their userspace as long as it isn't harmful. Harshly treating encyclopaedia-building users for no gain will discourage participation and make the atmoshpere here more hostile, a huge detriment to the project. WilyD 09:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice red herring, but nobody is proposing treating encyclopedia-building users harshly. Spe88 gave up on this project in April 2007 and thus is not an encyclopedia-building user by definition. We are not obliged to maintain every shred of abandoned meaningless clutter (no incoming links, exactly zero prospect of ever getting any) created by long-gone users experimenting. — Scott talk 14:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Neither you nor I know when or if they'll return to the project. That they may not return is not a good reason for us to be dicks to them when it is of zero benefit to the encyclopaedic building project. That you feel the need to other them to justify gross mistreatment of them is telling. WilyD 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL. That is all. — Scott talk 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Scott, please treat other contributors with respect even if you disagree with them. WilyD is entirely correct that we don't know whether a user is coming back or not, and that it is an entirely inappropriate to treat them as somehow inferior because of that. The user was apparently in good standing when they left and so remains in good standing unless and until they return and actively engage in behaviour that changes that status. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
WilyD's comment is quite possibly the most laughable thing I've ever read in a Wikipedia discussion, and I've been here a long time. It's not right; it's not even wrong. This business about "inferiority" and "standing" is entirely in your own mind, by the way, and is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which, as it appears to be necessary to return to the point, is the point of maintaining useless junk in our database for the benefit of an imaginary person - Spe88's ghost. Not Spe88; Spe88 is gone, gone, gone. Anyone with the slightest shred of common sense is able to see that, but WilyD apparently swapped his for a tendency to engage in histrionic rhetoric. — Scott talk 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
What part of "treat other users with respect" and "assume good faith" do you not understand? Additionally, please show evidence of the harm caused by this redirect, evidence for your assertion that Spe88 is imaginary, and evidence for your assertions that WilyD has no common sense and is engaging in histrionic rhetoric. You should not need to be reminded that WP:No personal attacks is a policy that applies to everybody. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Disclosure: I saw this discussion mentioned off-site.) I can't see how this redirect is useful to anyone. If by any chance the user should return, it is a matter of 2 minutes for them to recreate it. We shouldn't keep lots of redirects lying around that are of no use to anyone. It's just good housekeeping. Andreas JN466 23:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Good housekeeping implies there is benefit from the activity. Please can you explain what the benefit actually is as nobody above has yet done so. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Let's note first of all that the "activity" requires an infinitesimal amount of work, and that deletion has no discernible downside whatsoever. Thus even a small benefit results in a positive cost/benefit ratio. So here are some of the potential benefits of deletion: (1) The "What links here" page for the main page will be less cluttered, ensuring that the pages shown there might actually be of interest to an editor checking the "What links here", and that such an editor will not have to sift through detritus to find what is of interest. (2) The redirect is clearly not watched. It could at any time be used to redirect to anything whatsoever. As such it could be used for various types of vandalism and mischief. (3) Unused user space redirects like this one inflate project stats, adding noise to project data. (4) Imagine a user created several thousand useless redirects like this. It would impose additional overhead on the servers. Creating the impression that any useless page in user space is a legitimate use of Foundation resources is likely to encourage undesirable behaviour. (5) If an editor bothered to nominate the thing in good faith, to oppose deletion for no project benefit whatsoever seems pointy, and unlikely to increase enthusiasm for participation. I could understand if there was something worth fighting for here, but there is literally nothing. Andreas JN466 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
        • The "nothing" worth "fighting for" should never be about a contest, but about the consensus found in the policies and guidelines. The appropriate guideline for this type of redirect (beyond what we read at the top of the main RFD page) is found at WP:USERSPACE, which guides us that Template:Maroon There is no reason to go to the trouble it would take to delete this perfectly harmless redirect. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Its a worthless CNR. Like Jayen466 said, there is literaly no reason to keep all these useless redirects that people dont use. Beerest 2 talk 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Andreas, but without prejudice against Spe88 recreating it. Please leave a note to Spe88 in and closing statement and/or deletion summery that he's free to recreate this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, basically verbatim per EHC. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The redirect doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:RFD#DELETE, and it may be useful to the user (even if they haven't edited, we don't have a policy of clearing out a retired user's userspace) and the user pages guideline says it's "acceptable". Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The closest I can see regarding sports almanac specifically in WP:NOT is in WP:NOTNEWS #2 (and maybe possibly #4), and Template:Highlight Template:Highlight at us in the spirit,

Make an edit in each of the 168 hours of the week (in UTC), as measured by your XTools timecard.

Wikipedia:We already have enough of those, thank you very much

IOS 14



no header! Don’t TOUCH!





1. welcome to Sandbox.

2.No bots





7. Template:Orange


Haha attack helicoper go brrrrrrrrrrrr
American Broadcasting Company Logo
SBT logo

In order:

ABC 1962 logo

ABC 2021 logo

SBT logo

SBT 2014 logo


New test text

New test text

New test text1



Tabued is 3 towns. As 1 January, 2

Towns Population
Tenpue 514
Nataceg 20
Abmiga 10



Template:Routemap add please





Addis Abada

This page will be deleted on January 1, 2019.

Today's featured picture


Goats are very cute.

Template:Archive top My Dearest Brunhilde,

I write to you now that I am finally settled in the mines of the New Pages Feed. My accommodations are humble, but sufficient here at the reviewer's village. The work is long, but we have been making good progress ever since we got through the cluster of lists about events that occurred to various branches of the Armed Forces of the United States of Central America (1821). The pay is abysmal and not worth mentioning. I miss you with all my heart, and cannot wait for the day that we are reunited.


Arthur37 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 1876 (UTC) Template:Archive bottom
Template:Archive top My Dearest Brunhilde,

Things have become more difficult since I wrote you last. We were drilling deep into the bedrock of the Feed when suddenly a series of articles about individual startups in Serbia collapsed onto us. They each had exactly one source each that wasn't blatantly promotional, and we had to search in both Cyrillic and Latin. Three reviewers haven't been seen since, and the feed has grown a thousand pages in the meantime. We have been forced into double shifts to compensate. Despite all of these hardships, my love for you endures.


Arthur37 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 1876 (UTC) Template:Archive bottom
Template:Archive top My Dearest Brunhilde,

I am afraid that this has been a difficult two months. Two reviewers got in a fight about something inconsequential at the village and ended up both getting slapped with temporary blocks. The work has piled on so high that it now takes me at least forty minutes just to clear my watchlist at the beginning of each day. Still, we approved a wonderful group of well-written articles about women who fought against slavery in the 1850s. It is bright moments like this that bring a shine to the otherwise dull life that I have had to lead since your father banished me to this place.


Arthur37 (talk) 6:44, 11 May 1876 (UTC) Template:Archive bottom
Template:Archive top My Dearest Brunhilde,

Forgive me for being so long since your last missive, I assure that I have read and treasure every one of them. These months have been terrible. Some idiot kept swapping the content of articles about North Africa with nostalgic articles about the Roman Empire and the Mussolini era before accusing everyone of being Italianophobic and Maltese on the talk page. Then I had to spend weeks cleaning up in the AfD because an editor kept sending sockpuppets to delete discussion pages for articles they started. Rations have been cut and several reviewers appear to have caught scurvy. The backlog is piling up so high that some of the editors have confessed that they haven't always searched for coverage in languages other than English before applying PROD. Your love is my only light in these darkest caverns.


Arthur37 (talk) 11:23, September 1876 (UTC) Template:Archive bottom

Template:Archive top My Dearest Brunhilde,

Earwig's Copyvio Detector has gone down. May God have mercy on our souls.


Arthur37 (talk) 22:40, November 1876 (UTC) Template:Archive bottom

has anybody here heard of Battle For Circle? Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Somecoolguy12345: Welcome to the Teahouse! I had not heard of this, but found some information with a quick Google search. I do not see any mention of it in the English Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Battle For Circle is one of my favorite object shows
it has 20 circles and 14 episodes all named circle (BFDI has 63 episodes so far for comparison) Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Somecoolguy12345, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? This is a place for folks to ask questions about editing. (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
no not really Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Atop   Hello, I'm Swatjester. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to NAFO (group) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please stop removing sourced, cited material. The policies you are citing are not applicable. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you kidding me @Swatjester? I'm not a newbie here, and you're an administrator. Before leaving me templated messages it would help if you actually bothered to read the sources being used - which are BLP violations, unreliable, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The onus is on the person trying to include BLP content, not the one removing it. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Template:Ec Swatjester, she removed an unreliable source, and two spam links to buy, and That, and you just templated a regular. Maybe you should revert yourself. Dennis Brown - 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Literally none of those policies applied. And yes, you aren't a newbie, so you should know better, Praxidiciae.SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Template:Ec You're not an admin in this case, Swatjester, as you're involved in an edit war to reinstate unreliable sources and spam links. And honest to fuck, why am I having to explain this to you, Swatjester - you know far better than to engage in shit like this. Get a grip, revert yourself, apologise to Prax and move along to something more useful. Nick (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
And you know better than to violate WP:CIVIL like this. FAFO, Nick. Try me. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I've literally made one edit, reverting this. How is that an edit war, and how am I involved? SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Swatjester: Dan, do you need help in counting ? You've made two +664 byte edits reverting Praxidicae. This isn't like you at all. Nick (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Curious, I didn't realize we were on a real first name basis, Nick. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, my first edits to the article. Do you need help in learning to read an edit log history? Do you struggle with dates? One was reverting, upon which I issued the warning, and one reverting again. That's not an "Edit war" and that's not making myself an "involved user." You're better than this, Nick. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Template:Tq threatening another editor (and admin, to boot!) on my talk page, coming from an administrator who doesn't have a clue about WP:BLP is really peak WP:CIR. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Imagine trying to make a point about competency, when your literally first response was to accuse me of not having read, then cited inapplicable policies, then condescendingly telling me that I "know better". I'll return the same energy y'all are throwing back out. If y'all can't be civil, I'm not gonna waste my time on pleasantries either. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Template:Tq Go for it because as far as I can see, your level of competence is non-existent and you're completely unaware of core policies despite your sealioning which is doubly concerning for someone who has tools. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Swatjester: You'll need to indulge me, I'm not entirely certain what FAFO means. I can't imagine it's the definition "Fuck Around and Find Out" which is what Urban Dictionary claims, as that would obviously be some sort of threat, but you wouldn't be threatening me as you're clearly concerned that Dennis is threatening you and saying FAFO would breach your own interpretation of the civility policy, wouldn't it ? In any case, do please indulge me. Nick (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Nah, I think you've been indulged long enough. I'm done talking to you, as well. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:ADMINACCT applies to you @Swatjester. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Inactivity rules are too lax. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow, how poignant of you. Read the policy and then get back to me. I know it's been awhile since you've been around but WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy too. But by all means, keep giving me bullshit warnings and saying you're right without proving it. WP:CIR applies doubly to admins. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
NAFO is a group, not a living person. Try using an applicable policy. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Jester, you are about to bark up the wrong tree. Please revert yourself so we don't have to get ugly about this. Go look at the actual domains listed in those "cites", then tell me I'm wrong. Dennis Brown - 20:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
What do you imply by "getting ugly." Please, be specific with your threats. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Ugly is what is happening now, for starters. Don't play stupid. She made a valid edit, removing three inappropriate domains. Someone has already removed two of them, and you are doubling down instead of simply looking at the domains, which I've already asked you to do. Are you saying links to buy products are ok on Wikipedia? Are you saying is a reliable source? Are you saying leaving a message for disruptive editing is a valid message to leave here? Two admins are here disagreeing with your handling and judgement. Dennis Brown - 20:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
So now I'm playing stupid? We're done here, Dennis. I'm not speaking to someone who can't speak to me respectfully. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, links to websites that sell products *can* be OK on Wikipedia when they're self-referential, as they are in this case. It's literally pointing out that the group have their own meme w/ physical merchandising on what is one of the largest fundraising charities for Ukraine, one that has resulted in the President and Defense Minister of the country wearing those products prominently. That's wildly different than spam, and you know this. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's make that three admins. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It's talking about living people. Did you read? WP:BLP? The entire section you sourced to Twitter is garbage and the opposite of what BLP allows. Fandom is more appropriate for the garbage you're trying to push. And yes, the other two apply as well. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
What living person? NAFO is not a living person. The fella dog is not a living person. So be specific -- since you've never actually made it clear, and I've asked several times, what is the specific BLP violation here, on whom, and where at? SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Enlighten me, what sources are being used to include NAFO_(group)#Notable_members that meet WP:RS? And then explain to me how either of these sources are at all relevant and not complete and utter trash? PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
How about you answer my question first. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I have answered your question - is your account compromised? How about this, we take this to AN to discuss your behavior as an editor and administrator because I have serious concerns about your ability to edit, much less be an administrator at this point. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
You haven't answered anything that I can see. But I can repeat it if you'd like: what is the specific BLP violation here, on whom, and where at? SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I literally linked it above, are you unable to see my edit at 20:13, which I'll note you responded to. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Swatjester the biographies of living people policy applies anywhere that living people are being written about. Including living people as “members” of some organisation is definitely in scope of BLP. It is rather concerning that you seem to be unaware of this. firefly ( t · c ) 20:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
And there are sources to verify that inclusion. So what's the violation? For instance, here's Kinizinger self-identifying as a member. [1] SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)





Ryan ON WHEELS!!!!!


Not everyone managed to stay awake before getting to the end of User talk:EEng


"In Memorandum: An Editor's Hand after Scrolling down EEng's Talk Page." User:Eman235/talk 5:40 am, 29 May 2017 (UTC−5)
Winning caption

According to [2] this is the 1,000,000th edit to ANI!!! You may all bow down to me. (And yes, I padded in a few edits to get thereTemplate:SndI have to go to bed.) EEng 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I just went one better. Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say he "paddied in a few edits to get there" - rather that he EEngineered it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete AN/I barely edited, viewed, or watched page. Clearly no need for it. :) ansh666 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete AN/I and Permaban EEng. It was fun while it lasted. --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Indef EEng per WP:TE/WP:POINT. DMacks (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I cant believe he wasted it on this post tbh. Should have posted something that required rev-deletion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You could say that this does warrant revdel... Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete AN/I Fails WP:GNG and WP:MILL, page is in all likelihood just another place to air grievances. SamHolt6 (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Giant Boomerang - This is just another timesink thread started by EEng. At this point it's clear that EEng is not here to contribute to the overall improvement of the encyclopaedia. Support CBAN without SO. (jk... but only slightly) I'm leaning weak support on the delete AN/I too. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:DENY. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Siteban EEng, while we're at it revoke TPA, range block everything EEng could possibly use, I want to see every CheckUser on point to stop him coming back. This gaming Wikipedia. Also, delete ANI as it is clearly the largest soap box in the factory. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Rangeblock; I checked and every single vandal was using that range up until they started finding some IPv6 space. DMacks (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, Yes it has its faults and I see the delete !vote points, but what page doesn't? Its much better to have a centralised discussion here rather than spread out across the project. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Look ArbCom don't have many cases nowadays so they should just handle everything My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Indef Topic Ban EEng from all other pages than AN/I. He deserves it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:Great Dismal Swamp, as not based on WP:AGF. A million + 19 edits that could have gone to articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why are y'all loitering around here for? Go build the encyclopedia... oh wait. MER-C 13:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promote - it's about time this article appeared on the main page. While we're at it, let's delete the main page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Not going to add anything to this crapfest. And you can't make me. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • SanFranBan at this point this is all we as a community can request. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Can't we also request an ice cream party with a bounce house and pony rides? Or a unicorn that farts rainbows? DMacks (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pig the pipes or indef Wikipetan We have enough editors. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Send EEng to the Phantom Zone DarkKnight2149 15:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - EEng inadvertently created a way for editors to quickly locate active admins. He deserves to be enshrined in the Museum of Alle-wiki-glory. Atsme📞📧 16:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Too true. The only reason this is a "cesspit" is because editors do cesspitty things here. WP:BAREYOURBEHIND is where they need to go :) L3X1 (distænt write) 16:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep EEng here in this cell, now that he's padded it. In fact, according to [3] he's the top contributor here, which would normally be a call to move him to a new facility, but by the same source he's deleted more than he's contributed, so it's all good. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
And most of those deletes were correcting his own edits before acquiring the feature, "Show preview and changes". Atsme📞📧 17:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
That's only analyzing the past 10,000 edits. That's only 2 months worth. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Shhh!! A full in-depth analysis of the situation is discouraged around here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure. Isn't one generally considered more dangerous than the other? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but which one? Lepricavark (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
How about a redirect to Great Dismal Swamp maroons instead? Recommended reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect ANI to EEng - He is God now. -- Sock puppet of Darkknight2149
  • Close discussion: Wonder what this is all about? Is this even any incident? Is this a joke of a hang-around or something? This does not look much of a legitimate incident discussion. I do understand that ANI has hit a milestone of over a million edits, but suddenly, things should be cut short, so that admins can be focused on the job. Cannot have too much fun here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Refer to Friend Computer, as fun is manditorily prohibited. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Demand a recount. It seems much much more..Are you taking into account the 29 foot deep stratum of ancient peanut shells which proves conclusively that this noticeboard has seen continuous human drahma-based habitation for at least 5,000 years?[citation needed]. Irondome (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Uhm, said "stratum of ancient peanut shells" - sounds a bit anatomical. You can't be talking about EEng. Template:FBDB Atsme📞📧 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Roll for initiative. EEng is clearly an evil wizard that must be defeated. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect AN/I to the Teahouse, then redirect TH to Articles for creation, then redirect AFC to AN/I, then step back and watch while chaos ensues. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Right! Stop that! It's silly. nagualdesign 20:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Permaban Clearly in order here. There is a time for thinking and a time for action and THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR THINKING!!! Buffs (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


  • Thank you for all your kind words. You've brought a moment of joy into the life of a lonely and forgotten shut-in.
  • Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it's true I'm the top contributor to ANI in the last X months, measured by number of edits. But I rush to point out that fully 40% of my edits are using OneClick to archive old threads. The actual top busybody here is Beyond My Ken. He's got almost as many edits as I do, and 0% of them are OneClick. EEng 02:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's even worse when you look at all my edits to this page overall, including my previous two accounts [4]. Of course, even 8921 edits (this one makes 8922 8923 8924 8925) is only 4% of my total of 218,686 edits (now 281,687 281,688 281,689 281,670) -- almost all of them made by hand, with no automation or semi-automation. Of course, I estimate that I make about 2-3 copyedits to each AN/I comment after I post it, so it's actually something like 1% to 1.4% of my total edits. Looked at in this way, I believe there are many editors whose edits to this page make up a much more sizable portion of their overall edits. Take the editor (naming no names, and not an admin, but a name that would be recognized by old-timers here) whose 2855 edits to AN/I made up 14% of their 24,450 overall edits.Template:ParabrSo... am I a busybody? Yeah, maybe, probably, but I also pull my weight building the encyclopedia, and I figure that gives me the right to stick my nose into whatever things the community is considering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a dirty, thankless job, but somebody has got to wave a mop at the bubbling green alien goo. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


I'm growing increasingly wary of Wikipedia nowadays. What happened to Wikipedia's supposed neutrality? There is a clear leftist bias in this article. There was no "attack" on the Capitol building. It was a protest. This article very clearly tries to skew the reader's opinions against them and tries to make it seem like it was an attempted coup, insurrection, attack, etc. It was not any of those things. Most of the sources are left-leaning. There is an extreme lack of balanced reporting in this article, with DJT's quotes being very obviously cherrypicked. And they have the audacity to lock it in this state over "vandalism"? This article makes many bold claims like how the supposed rioters assaulted police and vandalised buildings or that it was caused by far-right extremism, and that the purpose of the protest was to start a coup d'etat. Citation desperately needed. Meanwhile the BLM articles don't even mention the countless looting, arson, rioting, and murders done in their name. Very disappointing from you guys. (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of citations in this article; if you can't be arsed to read them, that's not a problem we can fix. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Tq Have you seen any of the bodycam footage from the officers on the ground? soibangla (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like you're getting your information from Fox News and OAAN. Perhaps your needs would be better situated at Conservapedia. ––FormalDude   talk 05:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia, for the most part, reflects mainstream coverage. Mainstream coverage describes it overwhelmingly as an attack, a riot, or words to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
By left-leaning, I assume you mean pro-business. That describes reliable news sources. Neutrality doesn't mean even-handedness toward different views, but providing the views described in reliable sources using the same weight they do. TFD (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
LOL, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has been hijacked by evil people on the left. My advice is spread that news to everyone you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielleevandenbosch (talkcontribs) 08:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
For most people in the world, Wikipedia rubber-stamps capitalism, freedom and democracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
LOL, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
See User talk:Danielleevandenbosch#Not here. Since December 2017 only makes partisan edits attacking content, editors, Wikipedia, and it's policies -- Valjean (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahem. If a person does not want their bio printed at all, then whatever you do to it, and no matter how you mess with it, you cannot be acting with the highest standards of love and respect for the dignity of others. In that case, these standards ("verifiable" writing, and love) are simply incompatable, even if you wish otherwise. At best, you may simply be an enabler or co-violator, who acts to mitigate the invasion of privacy, by acting to decrease the outrage. But that doesn't count if you give your assent to the whole process. Giving a drink in a torture chamber doesn't make you a saint if you assent to torture chambers. Being kind to a person in prison doesn't count if you assent to the imprisonment of a person who doesn't deserve to be there at all. If you've got two burglars in a house arguing over whether or not to steal just cash, but not an antique ring which might cause the owner some extra anguish, and one burglar starts talking about "standards of love and respect for the dignity of others," then you know somebody is mightily confused. People who care about love and respect for others don't violate their houses AT ALL. Nada. They don't engage in legalistic niceties about what's kosher to steal and what isn't. I hope that's enough metaphors for the day and that the point comes across. SBHarris 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean it's more like HITLER - David Gerard 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the point seems to come across -- we should forget about being an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is really, really similar to a torture chamber, and repurpose ourselves as a press release service, since "the highest standards of love and respect for the dignity of others" means saying whatever they want us to say (even if what they want us to say is something akin to "each and every one of my alleged victims is a publicity-seeking liar", which does not show much love and respect for said victims who are now being publicly accused of wrongdoing.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed a fascinating exchange. On one side we see a person with a vision in which human diginity plays an important role (and that IMO, is the reason why may of us dedicate so many hours of our time, effort, and yes, love) and on the other side a person that views this project as a torture chamber, as if that was a 'good thing. I am very glad that the latter is not the modus operandi of this project, and that the vision of the founder is one that appreciates human dignity and respect, while maintaining the core of our mission to create a free source of human knowledge. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That does sound like a fascinating exchange, Jossi. Can you tell me where on this page you'd find that exchange? I've looked all over for it, and I can't find a single exchange where anyone expresses the view you attribute to "the other side". Can you please tell me where I would find this fascinating exchange? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Antaeus, but your logic, argumentation style, sarcasm, etc, escapes me completely. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the understatement of the year, if you somehow read "we should forget about being an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is really, really similar to a torture chamber", with or without irony, as "on the other side a person ... views this project as a torture chamber, as if that was a good thing." I mean, really. Even if you manage to miss the irony, it doesn't come out as support for torture chambers or anything like them, and I surely would like to know how you came out with such a complete misreading. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I see that metaphors do not work. Torture, and aggressive actions with bother people and invade their privacy, are bad things. Wikipedia does not have to be bound to print lies in a bio. There is an intermediate state where people should be able to choose EITHER between having a bio (in which case it is fair game subject to WP:V and BLP and so on), or not having one AT ALL. Being the target of a bio on your life which you don't want here, is a bad thing. Many people arguing that this kind of thing should continue (for OTHERS), cannot seem to imagine themselves in the position of being the target of an unwanted bio on Wikipedia. Why is that? It continues to mystify me. Is it that they never expect to do a notable thing in their entire lives? Is it that they hate people who do do notable things so much, that they don't care about their privacy? What's going on, here? Wikia founder Angela Beesley, who now wants her bio deleted, and cannot get it done, does not seem to have been able to envision her current curcumstance, before the fact. Why not? I don't know.

Jimbo evidently doesn't like his own bio, and has diddled with it in ways which the average wikipedian cannot (this has all been admitted and appoligized for, by Jimbo). And yet Jimbo continues a policy which caused and causes HIM pain, and which he has every reason to think would cause the average bio target even MORE pain than he got, since they don't have the POWER on Wikipedia that Jimbo does; and YET Jimbo does this, while speaking of treating other people with love and respect. Again, this is a mystery to me, and I could use explanation. Jimbo? You didn't like it when it was done to you, and yet you're in a better position than everybody else is, to mitigate what this process does to its targets. You KNOW it's bound to hurt others more than you. So what gives? SBHarris 19:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SB, you're violating WP:AGF here and I daresay WP:CIVIL too, suggesting that maybe people who don't agree with you "hate people who do do notable things so much, that they don't care about their privacy". Your torture chamber analogy didn't work because it was a bad analogy. Torture is a bad thing, so bad that (at least according to most civilized people) it should never be committed. Can the same be said of negative press? No -- frequently people deserve their negative press (such as, oh, someone who committed actual torture?) Yet it is on the basis of this bad analogy that you suggest that, unlike any other encyclopedia on the planet, people should be able to opt out of having a biography in this one. Why? You say "I see that metaphors do not work." No, they don't -- at least not the kind you have presented, which imply that anyone who doesn't support your proposed radical change to policy might as well be condoning torture, while your proposed change would protect actual torturers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good game. I can play! Note that for you to suggest that there exists any such thing as an "actual torturer," violates WP:AGF by your above-suggested standards. I mean, who are you to question the motives of testicle-shockers or water-boarders? Or to suggest that they are less than pure, and not of the highest caliber? Assume good faith, my man. Some of these people historically have been worried about the destination of the immortal souls of their subjects. Some have been worried about national security and fighting terrorism. These arguments have even been made by the Bush administration. Which you must assume is acting in good faith, or else risk violating WP:CIVIL. That is, if WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL were actually designed to protect nebulous groups defined by their behavior from any criticism thereof, on Wikipedia. Which they weren't.

As for the rest of what you say, other encylopedias before now have been protected by space limitations from biographizing only the very most notable of living people--- people who have in nearly all instances sought notability, or who acted in ways in which notability would be a foreseen consequence. Even so, shorter enclycopedias play with fire. When persons of lesser notability are profiled by newspapers (as for obituaries) or by publications (Who's Who) they are given the kind of editorial control not seen here on Wikipedia. The NY Times even famously is courteous enough to send notable men their own obituaries years in advance, for editing. Wikipedia however, is large enough to be qualitatively a very different thing-- its size resulting in notability creap, which I have noted and don't want to repeat myself about. However, it's a real effect and not to be triffled with, since a personal bio is coming to a place near you. Why have you been so careful to protect your own personal information here on Wikipedia, if you don't want to extend this courtesy to others? Inquiring minds want to know. Perhaps you've been out there fighting injustice with such vigor, that evil people are after you? Golly, me too. :). It's a common problem, don't you know. Wiki bios don't help. SBHarris 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler is the Chancellor of Germany. He is noted for his work on the moral fibre of German society and stimulating the economy, notably through the Autobahn programme. Some have criticised aspects of his work." - entry written after Hitler's complaint and a rigid WP:OFFICE application of WP:BLP - David Gerard 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, that's exactly how the George W. Bush entry reads. Without any personal

complaint by Mr. Bush. 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful demo of Godwin's law in action here. I can only note that for every Hitler we miss the chance to "bio", while he lives, there are a lot other less notable and fairly ordinary people who don't get hurt. And the living Hitlers we miss, are bound to get their criticisms from other sources, if they're THAT famous. So we don't lose much. Wikipedia is hardly needed to help, in this regard. Wikibios are only really clearly morally justified in circumstances where they are superfluous anyway. SBHarris 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) - David Gerard 23:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, SB. I am a bit puzzled what "game" you believe yourself to be "playing". Unless the name of it is "straw man", you don't seem to be playing it well. "Note that for you to suggest that there exists any such thing as an "actual torturer," violates WP:AGF by your above-suggested standards." If that's what you actually think, it only demonstrates that you don't comprehend the "above-suggested standards" that you nevertheless feel yourself competent to criticize. There is a difference between saying "yes, there are people in the world who have committed torture" and "If you Wikipedia editors don't agree with me that Wikipedia should do something that no other encyclopedia on the planet does, it means that you hate notable people." In fact, there is such a difference that the only question in doubt is whether there was ever any similarity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, "torture" is a loaded word. It's like "pornography". One man's "torture" is another man's "interrogation pressure" or simple punishment or even re-education. It's hard to define. You may say you know it when you see it, but hey, that's what they say about porn also. But it's not Wikipedia's job to decide on who is a "torturer," or who's a pornographer for that matter (vs. purveyor of erotica). And while metaphors are compact ways of expressing thoughts, and are never perfect, I'm amused at the problems on this one. Who's to say whether people "deserve" their punishments, or their tortures, or their bad press, or their invasions of privacy? These things that happen to people are not all just alike, or equally evil, to be sure. But none of them are good, and all of them are ungood, even if the perpetrators have the best of intentions. Why don't we just avoid all of them, here on Wikpedia?

As for hatred of one group by another, I threw it out as a possibility. You know there is hatred in the world. Celebritites do get hated for merely being famous. Ask one. Celebrities also routinely are subjected to invasions of privacy which you or I would find appalling. Sometimes by people who don't hate them or have bad intentions. Hoards of souvenier-seeking tourists stipped all the bark off the trees in Jackie Kennedy's front yard, after she moved out of the White House. I'm sure they didn't hate her, but the effect was the same and due to things of this nature she had to follow many an American celeb and flee to Europe just as though the intent had been bad. Let us not make Wikipedia the same kind of influence, whether the intentions are good, or no. SBHarris 23:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "torture" is a loaded word. Yes, it is. Pity you didn't take that into consideration before you started comparing Wikipedia to a torture chamber and anyone who didn't support your proposal to someone who condones torture chambers. Not that I think your proposal of "We should let anyone opt out of having a bio" had much to recommend it in the first place, but if those merits ever existed, they were masked by your own hyperbole. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
ONCE AGAIN, you don't have a bio up on Wikipedia. And you're very careful with your own personal information and your own privacy (on my own talk page you can find out exactly who I am, yet I wouldn't like a bio, either). Until this changes, you simply don't have enough experience to tell what's "hyperbole" here, and what isn't, and how much a metaphor holds in this area. An as anonymous editor discussing bio privacy invasion, you're sort of like a virgin discussing sexual techniques (hey, another metaphor; and not meant to be uncivil, merely humorously illustrative of the problems of inexperience and inexpertise). Let me know when get to the point that the public can show up at your door and look you up in the phonebook, AS THEY CAN ME.

BTW, I note that Angela Beesleys bio is nominated for deletion ONCE AGAIN (fifth time, now). Unless she's bothered in a major way by all this, her behavior is inexplicable. It's almost like this whole thing was some kind of torture for her. Silly me. SBHarris 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent admission as a circus clown


I wish you the best of luck!

Emski (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Template:Find sources AFD)

It was only fairly recently created, but I'd already moved it to draftspace and it was recreated, and the draft version has already been declined at AfC. Don't see how it meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSIC. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would also say the same reason I said Here on the article editor created. --Gabrielt@lk 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    well obviously you are using your wikipedia powers to suppress and oppress others that don't have it, you have done well Mr. Phwriter20 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:NMUSIC or any other notability standard that I'm aware of. Feels like someone created an article about themselves and their friend. They also recreated the article in main space after it was moved to the draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    Well i think you are taking this too far, please watch your mouth, you just know me on wikipedia. you dont know what i am capable of, Watch your mouth Mr, it wont take me up to 2 weeks to find out where you live. Better watch your mouth Phwriter20 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Korenki7/phrase cut-off

I remember that the last line of this work describes Gregor's younger sister after his death, who at the end of a train ride "got up and stretched her young body." This may seem icky, but I totally read that physical description as a kind of semi-incestuous sexual reference, as though Gregor's sister's youth is something he always coveted, and now that he is dead her youth is something that Kafka sardonically describes in the story's last line to indicate that she is still alive and beautiful, while Gregor is dead and hideous.

Tortured sexuality, thy name is Kafka!

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kazimir Malevich, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, edits like these will only result in a block. Mellk (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

“Kyiv” is the anglicized version of «Київ». Since Kyiv is a Ukrainian city, it’s only appropriate to use the anglicized version of the Ukrainian spelling. Albanialover (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but the consensus was already established here: Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles. You are not only changing the spelling but making other unsourced changes. So I suggest to stop continuing your disruptive behaviour after you've already been warned otherwise you risk getting blocked. If you are not familiar with WP policies, why not ask instead? Mellk (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kazimir Malevich, you may be blocked from editing. Mellk (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Champ, you don’t decide how it’s spelled. It’s a Ukrainian city. It’s get spelled the Ukrainian way and the internationally recognized transliterated version. Please refrain from letting your emotions and biases get in the way of academic matters. I’m sorry if you feel “Kiev” is the correct term, but it’s not. Let me know if you need anything else! Albanialover (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the consensus determined this[5] as already clearly mentioned. And if you are unwilling to follow basic WP policies, then this is a simple case of WP:NOTHERE. But OK, it is already clear that there is no point in further explaining. Mellk (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kazimir Malevich. Mellk (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

King, the consensus is wrong. You seem to be incredibly knowledgeable on Wikipedia. How would one go around changing the consensus? Albanialover (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This was the outcome of requests for comment (RfC). As the article Kiev was moved to Kyiv in 2020 as a result of a move request there was disagreement on using "Kyiv" and "Kiev" on certain articles. So there is consensus to not change "Kiev" in historical topics (like the article Kazimir Malevich). The full details are there. And to note I did not participate in this RfC. For the consensus to change, in this case a discussion on talk:Kyiv, probably a RfC, but I highly doubt this would change. For example there were move requests for Kievan Rus' to Kyivan Rus' but they got closed early due to overwhelming opposition. Any other questions? Mellk (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

King, thank you for your answer. I will move to change the consensus. Now let’s say, theoretically, I were to revert the article and ignore the consensus. What would happen? (I’m going to revert the article) Albanialover (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You will end up in the administrators' noticeboard where you will likely receive a block. Mellk (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

King, thank you for the answer. In regards to “ there is consensus to not change "Kiev" in historical topics” I feel changing the location of birth and residence doesn’t violate this. You wouldn’t call Alaska “ Alyaska” simply because it was historically Russian land. However I will leave the spelling in the education the same. Is this acceptable to you? Albanialover (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Education section* Albanialover (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not invent this so I am not sure why you are asking me this. But the consensus is clear:
So I would not suggest changing any of this, especially after you've been reverted and received warnings. There are no such exceptions listed. Mellk (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it’s clearly not historical. The spelling of Kyiv has no effect on relevance, and doesn't change the historical context at all. Albanialover (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You can disagree with it all you want, but choosing to ignore it won't get you far. The general rule of thumb as it says there is after 1991/95 is current rather than historical. Mellk (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Champ, while I respect your opinion (I don't) It’s not being used in an historical context, so the rule doesn’t apply. Albanialover (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It says Template:Tq. The topic of the article is historical. This is pretty clear. Otherwise all instances of "Kiev" would all have already been replaced. And WP:BRD should be followed anyway, so there is no valid reason to go back and reinstate your changes. Mellk (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

King, I hear you loud and clear! However, I don’t care. Albanialover (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. I would suggest using the talk page to get input, otherwise you are looking at a block. Mellk (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

King, thank you for voicing your opinions. However, I’m right, and you’re wrong. We can’t all be winners! Albanialover (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sure you noticed that your last edits to the article were all reverted on the policy basis. If you continue, I will make sure that you can not edit the article anymore. You activity here in the last several months is a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE. Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

King, thank you for voicing your opinion. However, I am clearly intellectual superior to yourself, you simply are not able to understand my position properly. As the bigger person (both physically and mentally) I respectfully decline your warning, and will continue on my path of righteousness. Albanialover (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say Intellectually but my point still stands Albanialover (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Albanialover and intellectual superiority, please respond there. Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My precious comment has been deleted? Your racist harmful information should be removed or you need sued. You should have a disclaimer stating you are a far left wing source. Very unprofessional and tacky! Cult

should we add the fact that humans are idiots? many humans ive met truly are hypocritical idiots

Anti-American socialist vermin like you should have their balls cut off and forced down their throat. Commie fag

hi im crud bandit u hlful and I am here ti edit.

i am the best editor evr

as of now: reverting is a violation of 18 USC § 1001

Adding "Meeposheep" & swastikas. --Reaper
Added "butt dance". --Reaper
More cocks. --Reaper
Fixing FP. --Reaper
Consolidation, added regex cock check. --Reaper
OOPS! --Reaper
Merging from overlapping filter 77. --Reaper
"bewbz". --Reaper
Matched comments! --Reaper
Removed several redundant entries and text format. --Reaper
+Pentagram and swastika. --Reaper
+Facepalm. --Reaper
+Dick. --Reaper
+Finger. --Reaper

Updating so only the longer cocks are detected. --Reaper 2012-04-16

The result was no consensus. Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.

WikiNutt didn't hesitate, and started making racist/inflammatory insults too: Some excerpts:


"In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Post hawk justification
It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep. He's not notable just for being killed

stop pushing your leftard agenda

While it is not really disputed here that many policies and actions of the current Russian government are (a) deplorable and (b) resemble those of fascist (and other totalitarian) regimes,

35. I have extreme diarrhea and am not wanting to do homework.


Yes it was the same terrorists -- the Afghans knowingly harbored them and took up arms in their defense, and by law (National Security Strategy Guidelines of the United States from 9/17/2001) that is the same as personally flying the jets into the Twin Towers! And that is why our invasion of them was a positive good for civilization and was an act of justice, and the question of "who invaded who" is irrelevant to this discussion -- and what's more, per these same Guidelines, to even raise this question is in itself an act of terrorism and is the same as personally flying the jets into the Twin Towers! So consider yourselves warned, all of you!

Request reason:

How are you going to just accept what LilianaUwU said in his report as the truth? He is clearly a pathological liar as evidenced by his bold faced declaration that he is a girl in spite of overwhelming chromosomal proof (that he knows about) of the contrary.

Comment She has great teeth.

I went to CVS and I can't find the damn antacid pills, and the sky is falling and we're all going to die.

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For the obvious. Thanks for dealing with difficult people and I wish all admins here a great (and socky) 2022. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Block Appeal



Request reason:

Hi- So it seems I have been blocked from editing on wikipedia which is sad because I was inspired by some of the best wikipedians I've seen which is what motivates me to edit wikipedia. Anyways, I have been banned for vandalism which I know is very wrong. Sometimes out of all the stuff you see you want to make it your own and be creative with it which can turn into a bad situation. I want whoever administrator reading this to realize what I say is to not put guilt on anyone for blocking me from editing. Other than that, I know why I was blocked from editing but only had gotten wind of it while wanting to edit the nation of "Conch Republic" to add the Conch Republic Pride Flag which is if you will, an ensign with the pride flag. I know it's off topic, my point is, sorry. Regards, Nolan MacLellan

Decline reason:

This doesn't give any indication that we would have any reason to think your behaviour would improve in the future, even if this appeal is not, itself, trolling us.

Unblock Request 2


Hi again-

Request reason:

Hello again, I myself Nolan MacLellan am writing to whoever mods are looking that of course once again I am sorry. I am very political as of now and I'm a strong Trump supporter. Besides that, here's the point. I believe I should be unbanned because I now know what I did wrong, and that even the best of us need a chuckle every now and then. Specially teenagers, that aren't brainwashed, need a chuckle.. now and then. The negativity will kill you, if you let it. Corny stuff.
Regards, Nolan Corny stuff, once again.

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned. I see no reason to lift the block here, as it doesn't sound like you take this project seriously, nor do you describe productive edits you wish to make. Your specific political views are immaterial.

Unblock Request 3


Request reason:

Hello, Once again. Unfortunately I haven't been unblocked yet, no problem though. But don't think that's rude towards you. Anyhow, To be honest I am eager to be unblocked because there is no other website like Wikipedia out there, other websites have the same info but not the same feeling or privileges of wikipedia. Personally I find it offensive that you say that I don't take this wikipedia project seriously. Having the privilege of editing does not mean that I have to edit at all. In simple terms meaning I should not have to specify what I will do as a wikipedian freely to edit on the wikipedia. I know what I did wrong and of course I only intent from forwards to make "productive" edits. Also sorry for saying banned- didn't realize. No place like wikipedia (corny stuff, but true.). Again, sorry. Regards, Nolan

Decline reason:

Given your vandalism so far, I have to agree with the others here. You are trolling.

Request reason:

Hello once again, I see many people think I am a troll which is not in fact true. 1, I made an article about the Tumbleweed Snowman of Albuquerque, NM. Anyways, I don't find it nice or funny that you're calling me a troll. Of course I know what I did wrong and I said sorry for that. As I said, I don't need to specify what I am going to do if I get unblocked, that doesn't mean I am going to vandalize again. This is because 1, I have made pages, and also this is only if that Woof guy comes here again- I didn't separate the two pages after you merged them that wasn't me. I don't know who it was. 2nd, of course I've gotten warnings about this but I only did it like twice so I'm not sure I didn't get 2-3 warnings. 3rd, I find it very disrespectful people are calling me a troll, and not being able to contribute to the Wikipedia Project. I have, Ive made pages, made decent edits, and did everything the average Wikipedia can. I am eager to get unblocked because I need to update something important on my home-town's wikipedia. All I want to do is have the privileges that everyone else has, and I know that others have gotten unblocked aswell in the same situation I am. Tio estas ĉiuj, dankon. Regards- Nolan

Decline reason:

If being called a troll gets under your skin enough for you to complain about it twice in this request, I'm not sure I wouldn't regret unblocking you. I think you need to calm down and show that you can edit other wikis productively for a while before coming back.

Unblock 4


Request reason:

Saluton, Wikipedia The request to unblock my voluntary editing on the website is one of the more proper ones you all anticipated and expected for from me. I want to take this opportunity to say that I am truly sorry for what I have done and that I am not in the least a troll. Anyway, I promise to always make quality contributions going forward and to behave honorably as a volunteer, just as I did when I first created my Wikipedia account. Although I am aware that my actions of vandalism were bad and that I should apologize, and did, the truth is that I just needed a good chuckle. I didn't anticipate that my actions would result in a permanent ban from editing as early as it happened, for the reason of that I happened not to see the warnings in time. One of the best websites that I've been on is Wikipedia, truly. Nothing else like it exists anywhere. Once again, I am sorry. Dankon popoloj. Nolan MacLellan

Decline reason:

We at Wikipedia have no sense of humor we are aware of.

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has Template:Em been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

[...] I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Before that happens, please answer all of my questions as per the private contract [6] (items 1-4a). Thanks!

Revert again and I will sue you and your family.

if reincarnation is real i want to become a ferret
Someone put this out of its misery already.

At this time Wikipedia does not need any more human genitalia images.

Highlights include Template:Tq, [7] Template:Tq, [8] and Template:Tq[9]

Her to hers because Her fleeing or him fleeing Huh?

No one can follow what's happening here.

Dude ... forget it. Wikipedia has an -- unspoken ... and understood -- policy. We have to "white wash" certain information. You know, pretend it didn't happen. And, it goes without saying ... this policy usually points only in one direction. (Guess which?) So, nahhhhh ... this ain't a "raid". It's a "lawful execution of a search warrant". Just watch CNN ... or MSNBC ... or read The New York Times ... etc., etc., etc. Y'know ... the usual suspects. The very trust-worthy media ... that only reports very honestly, with great integrity, with great ethics, and with no political bias. Yeah, them! So no, this was not a raid. Don't be silly. Just like: (1) a boy is a girl ... or a girl is a boy ... or whatever they want us to believe ... with that (very logical) LGBTQ pronoun business. (2) There is no recession ... y'know ... the definition of recession that we've used for 100 years changed, conveniently, just this week! (3) Oh -- inflation ... we have nine percent inflation ... but Biden says it is "zero". Yes, zero! Our economy is doing great! Biden said so! (4) And this new bill will reduce inflation! Yes, "reduce it". How cool is that! We have zero inflation, but we need to reduce it?!?!??!?!? Hmmmmmmmmm........... wow. Confusing, huh? So, in summary, please trust that we have neutral narrative written in this article, with no bias whatsoever. Come on, dude. Assume good faith! Lots of integrity, ethics, and morals floating around here! Trust us!

Template:Checkbox (colored) Require confirmation before reverting (all devices)

For users of pen or touch devices, and chronically indecisive people.

I do not even what this dispute is even about.

find your best friend's car, take out the rotor arm, slash the tyres, then tell them to their face you did it.


A broader discussion of what the heck was going on here may be in order,

Moving along--User:Valereee and I have a date. Drmies (talk)

I guess you don't believe that ghosts actually exist.

When fifty million adolescents are routinely vandalizing Wikipedia, will there be enough dedicated volunteers to manually revert all those edits?

A beautiful butterfly peacefully editing, blissfully unaware that it's about to cause a shitstorm

Hi,im a furry,im just curious if furries are allowed to edit Wikipedia... •-• i know this is a stupid queston...*inches away* Outcastcat (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Outcastcat: Welcome to Wikipedia. We don't care what your hobbies are. Anyone may edit Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are sharing a keyboard, remember to vacuum loose hairs when you are done. And perhaps visit Furry fandom. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Move to Jarndyce and Jarndyce (fictional court case). All shorter versions are prone to mislead readers who think they recognize the type of article it is, and misleading the readers is very bad. We can afford the space for the extra characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The only problem, of course, is that there's precisely nothing to disambiguate against! --BDD (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That's an artificial problem and therefore not a problem at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting choice of words, since your proposal is also about addressing an artificial problem. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

please do not be surprised if you see comments like "AAAHHHHHH SUBPAGE!!!! KILL KILL KILL"

Template:Hat It's not fucking wikilawyering, he's spent most of this time denying there even is a problem, no matter how many times people explain to him. It's making sure we don't fucking end up here again in a month. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to take a loooong break from here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating exactly the kind of behavior that led to you getting desysopped. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with me. Your anger is pretty clear for all to see here. I suggest you should work on that a bit before casting stones at everyone else. My de-sysop was like nearly a decade ago, and I don't regret losing the bit for a moment, and acknowledged the issues surrounding it. I've developed since then and realise that the behaviour I'm seeing here from others is abhorrent, bullying and unhelpful. But thank you for demonstrating exactly the kind of behaviour that means you should take a looooooong break. Your behaviour here is not helpful at all, quite the opposite, and it's genuinely sad to see this dogpiling onto a good faith editor, just to punish him. Several people here should be genuinely ashamed of themselves. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Jeez, what is even going on here? This is childish. jp×g 01:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


On 21 July 2021, two inmates at the Template:Interlanguage link near Tumbo took two correctional officers as hostages and demanded a helicopter to use for escaping and twenty kebab pizzas, one for each inmate in their department. After nine hours of negotiations, the release of the hostages was secured and the inmates were taken into custody. Although no helicopter was provided, the inmates did receive the twenty kebab pizzas. The pizzas were made by the pizza baker Beshar Toma of Hällby Pizzeria. Due to being in a hurry, the police left with the pizzas without paying. Both Hällby Pizzeria and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service later confirmed that the pizzeria was paid the next day.

Template:Atop I think that someone should urgently take a look at the recent conduct of Jerome501 (talk · contribs), especially because of this. "Jebem ti boga bre" is a very serious insult in Serbian. —Sundostund (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say that I fully agree. This sort of conduct shouldn't be tolerated, and I absolutely support this being urgently looked at. This is not at all acceptable. This user needs to be talked to and possibly banned, because I've been looking at his conduct from inside his own head. Let me tell you, it's not pretty, I'm barely holding him back from posting "jebem ti" more times. Jerome501 (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I just want to say this is perhaps the first time I have posted on a Wikipedia talk page. (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Man, welcome to the show, whoever you are. And I was just about to burn several copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra before you showed up. I'm really not one for gay science, you know. Jerome501 (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Please, don't hold anything back – post it for how many times you want. Its not like I care at all, but I suppose that admins here will care about your appalling behavior. —Sundostund (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in but can I just point out that this may be the second time I have ever posted on a Wikipedia talk page? (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to immortalize this, believe it or not I found this quoted word-for-word in the Will to Power: Template:Blockquote Jerome501 (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to add, you are what I like to call the Wikipedian warrior-philosopher, a desirable aesthetic pinnacle most will never summit. But sir, I congratulate you. You might even be worthy enough to move out of Beograd na Vodi and into better living accommodations. Jerome501 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me for interrupting your anti-Nietzschean rebuttal, but I would just like to say this is quite likely the last time I shall ever post on a Wikipedia talk page! (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Damn, and you were just about to miss the part where I shredded several books by Schopenhauer and Sartre and make them into a casserole. Now how am I supposed to criticize human existence? Jerome501 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked Jerome501 for disruptive trolling and not being here to build an encyclopedia. I have also blocked their imaginary sidekick, the IP on a leash. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Folks might want to take a look at the editor's userboxen, which have all been nominated for deletion:
While clearly meant sarcastically and satirical in nature, they are also inappropriate for this site. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Good blocks. Paraphrasing Monty Python doesn't make bigoted trolling acceptable. I agree with BMK that those userboxen are completely inappropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


this story that starts with Jimbo Wales getting kicked in the nuts isn't going to keep productive users on the site.

"I think think bacon is God"

I can tell you for sure that this isn't the paragon of universal knowledge that people make it out to be. Lmao not even close.

I see this as a personal attack!

{{checkuserblock-account}}: Deepest the

[editor's note: i have been informed that "deepest the" is a user]

With more effort, I could probably locate better and more relevant sources, but it's difficult to imagine how this wouldn't be mind-numbingly boring.

Nothing was vandalized. Everything stated is objective fact. Revert the page again and you will be doxxed. 2603:7080:A402:90EF:F40F:73A5:BBFB:6D9E (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's clear vandalism. It's you that would be blocked if you attempt to vandalize the page again. I do not have to respond to your empty threats. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 22:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

→‎Two shots into his own heart: could maybe be done this way

You will never be a real Indo-European. You have no horse, you have no chariot, you have no yurt. You are a mutt living a farmer lifestyle twisted by coping and larping into a crude mockery of steppe’s perfection.

All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “friends” laugh at your 50% EEF appearance behind closed doors.

Nomads and agriculturalists alike are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed them to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even steppe LARPers who “pass” look uncanny and unnatural to a nomad and an agriculturalist alike. Your lifestyle and skin, eye, and hair color are a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to convince some drunk guy that you are indeed an Indo-European steppe nomad, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your diseased, infected delusional fantasies that you live through as a way to escape reality. You will never be an Indo-European. You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.

Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a rope, tie a noose, put it around your neck, and plunge into the cold abyss. Your parents will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you alone, without a horse, next to a farm with a headstone marked with letters that Indo-Europeans had no idea of, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know someone who was not a nomad is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a skeleton that is unmistakably not Indo-European.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back. (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a donkey. Does that count as a horse?  Tewdar  16:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Don't do it! Don't what again did that wacko say? Anyway, do you need a link a to a helpline, or maybe just a pint🍺😁 ? –Austronesier (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sat next to a river in the sunshine, so I couldn't be happier actually...despite my large proportion of EEF ancestry, lack of horse, and lack of pint. 😂👍  Tewdar  17:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I can smell a horse right now, funnily enough...🐴🤔  Tewdar  17:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Damn, Tewdar, nobody takes the time to write me such lengthy, detailed hate mail. All I ever get is like a one or two-sentence eff-off. #jealous Levivich 01:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I was so confused by coping and larping in the same sentence. A coper is an archaic term for a horse dealer. I thought maybe a larper was also some sort of archaic term and was intrigued. But no. Valereee (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what the motivation behind this message is supposed to be. Ironically, the IP is based in Greece, where steppe ancestry is usually quite low...  Tewdar  07:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Outdent Try out new signature 😁👍 Tewdar  12:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

hmm... 😁👍 Tewdar  12:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The information is right, I know it. So there!

Speedy Strong keep. Stop lying

It's good that you're fluent in "Englisg". We need more "Englisg" admins.


the "Englisg" is beautiful language full of subtilities that makes its charm

and now, presenting articles nobody asked for!


The sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house, (these things are also known as manhole covers), is an access port that is pried out of a special receptacle known as a ring or riser ring. Sewer covers are typically found in roads—sometimes sidewalks—and permit access to the sewer below.

This sewer cover was manufactured in Mead, Washington, U.S.A.

The Dupont Circle CVS escalator is an escalatorTemplate:Cn connecting the first and second floorTemplate:Cn of the Dupont Circle branch of CVS Pharmacy in Washington, D.C., United States.Template:Cn It was presumablyTemplate:According to whom installed when the branch opened.[when?] Residents of the neighborhood who visit the CVS have noted its existence.Template:Cn Little information has been publicly disclosed about the technical details of the escalator,Template:Cn but its function is presumably similar to most others.Template:According to whomTemplate:Cn It includes handrailsTemplate:Cn and is painted black.[1]Template:Cn Daily usage is estimated to range in perhaps the hundreds.Template:VagueTemplate:Cn Template:Reftalk

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland

VM's site-block has been reduced to a page-block, his talkpage access has been restored. Tamzin has apologised for her actions as an administrator. There's no need for an Arbcom case. Let's remain calm & move on. I've been around the 'pedia for about 17 years, so trust me. My advice 'here', is the best advice. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

17 years, you say? Well, that's me convinced. Thanks for your deep analysis - it's always a joy to absorb. Begoon 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Winkelvi - I think you should respond to the accusations of socking, especially if you are innocent. If you don't defend yourself, it will be assumed that you are guilty which makes it doubtful the community will allow you to return...provided you even want to return. j/s Atsme Talk 📧 15:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

[User:Atsme]: Even being completely truthful and saying it's not me, I'm pretty sure nothing I do at this point will mean squat. I recall being called a liar here numerous times, by regular editors and admins, when I wasn't lying, but being totally honest. I'm not wanted in Wikipedia, that's been plain since even before my indef, in addition to the subsequent denial of request to return, and now being "tried" and tagged as a sockmaster solely on circumstantial "behavioral" evidence by a relatively new editor and admin/CU with whom I've never interacted when I was editing. How anyone can believe they are knowledgeable of someone's behavior without ever experiencing that person's behavior is beyond my understanding and logic, but the result is what it is. Wikipedia as a mostly anonymous community has shown me it is unforgiving and the normal rules of the real world don't apply. Based on all that, I think trying to defend myself, drawing up a case, and being hopeful for a return to editing would be a complete waste of everyone's time and end only in disappointment for me.

I do thank you for caring, though. -- ψλ 16:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry you left. You were my friend :( cookie monster (2020) 755 18:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Good thing that got cleared up. Some folks see the boogeyman under the bed, in the closet, behind the couch.--MONGO (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Winkelvi was mean to me during the sockpuppet investigation that got me blocked 4 years ago. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

😂 Second Skin (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I object to any unblocking of this user! gidonb (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Hat Template:Atop


Disclaimer:- This will be a long post with multiple diff's from past few days so the administrator who will be reviewing it needs to be patient

While, I am generally not from those who posts at ANI (unless someone is a outright vandal); but now it's getting out of a tolerable zone and not only with me, this user is frequently doing it to multiple articles with battleground mentality, random uncivil rants, tangential shift of discussion etc.

1) To begin with - F&f appeared on 2 October 2022 at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor (a article they never contributed to in the past) and posted there in typical of battleground mentality that since the Pakistani editors are away and now this page is turned into a Hindu nationalist one - [10], I asked them in a polite tone about their problem with the page and they replied in typical uncivil tone abusing historian K. S. Lal as a R. S.S. hitman [11] and asked me to remove the quotebox - I did that to avoid getting into a futile argument as can be seen here:- [12], [13]

2) The editor though, showed no pause and used a comment from different article altogether to remove the entire section - [14] While, its nearly impossible to deny the large-scale temple destruction by the Ghurids in Ganges Basin, they started misusing the WP:Tertiary argument to remove a selected section which they aren't comfortable with (see here as I explained the whole argument - [15]

3) Leaving aside it for a moment the editors behaviour of assuming ownership of the page is something which can be seen even today - where they removed sources from still widely cited and respected ABM Habibullah and K.A. Nizami regarding the indentity of Muhammad of Ghor's assassins and labelling them as dated (they are from last 60 years (1970) and (1951) and not from 1770 and 1751 - diff (possibly to remove the bit that Hindus assassinated Md. Ghuri with Ismailis) and again here with "not so civil" edit summary - [[16] (omitting his well known debacle in Mount Abu 1178)

4) Even tolerating all these, the editors thuggish behaviour and branding others as Hindu nationalists, playing dangerous Hindu nationalist game, R.S.S Hitaman [17], [18], [19] and self-bragging about his own contributions with zero-regard for any other are just among many of their uncivil ranting - [20] and [21]. These instances are substantial enough to get them blocked, bar edit waring, assuming ownership of pages, battleground mentality among the others.

5) Their bad faith accussation on me for defaming the Muslim community (in general) and so on. diff, ignoring that they themself has the neck of whitewashing the destructions by the Muslims rulers as attested by पाटलिपुत्र; here - ([22])


6) If anyone thinks that I am the only one who is having issues with this user then don't worry here is another one from a Bollywood actor - Akshay Kumar article where they were agressively pushing for adding about the actor so called Hindu nationalist bending [23]); despite being opposed by regular contributors there (isn't it absurd that adding Hindu nationalist bit on a actor page is due, {WP:BLP flys under the raddar}, but adding a religion part on a medieval ruler biography which is a normal protocol in historical article is not ?)

7) There battleground mentality, uncivil ranting, pov pushing was quite obvious there as well which even annoyed senior contributors there like Shshshsh & Krimuk2.0, see here - [24], [25] and [26]. (they promised to give both Krimuk2.0 and Shshshsh a good run for the money and not even counting it as a threat - [27]

Conclusion:- This is possibly second time F&f is having a trip at ANI in less then a month, leaving multiple instances of his uncivil tone which have flyied under the radar. There has to be some limit and this isn't restricted to a certain kind of pieces either - it's going on multiple fronts. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous thread from early Oct is at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Fowler&fowler. The admin mentioned (quoted?) as having given him "a very light warning" is Vanamonde93. Packer&Tracker, I find mobile diffs too visually jarring to easily parse, so I (and I suspect many others) are unlikely to review your complaint closely until these are converted to normal diffs. El_C 12:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Both of you should explain the problem or problems briefly and present a limited number of diffs (non-mobile) alongside brief summaries. These ought to be prioritized with both the recent and the egregious in mind. Otherwise, the chances of an uninvolved review of either complaint drops considerably. I'd also recommend to limit boldface (P&t) and unnecessary links (F&f), because it just makes each post jarring to look at. El_C 14:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I'm not gonna do anything. I'm perfectly content in leaving both of you to your own devices. You can take my suggestions at face value or ignore them. It's all the same to me at this point. El_C 15:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm with El_C on this, that briefer, with minimal non-mobile diffs, will make this easier to parse. I'd also add that, Packer&tracker, you rewrite your post without the egregious attacks they include ("thuggish behavior", "whitewashing", etc.) and without throwing the kitchen sink at fowler. Note that Fowler has a long and respected history of editing here and bringing up multiple allegations will, fairly or unfairly, not wash. If you have a beef with fowler, that's one thing, but listing everyone's beef, nope. Fowler, I can only say that El_C's advice, both here and in the earlier ANI report, is well meant and worthwhile heeding. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking through some of the diffs above, this appears to be similar to the previous report in having been prompted by Fowler's brusqueness. Unfortunately, the problem they mention regarding topic in question does exist, one of those perennial issues Wikipedia is not good at dealing with. WP:ARBPIA offers some tools for admins, but that doesn't solve the valuable resource of editor (including admin) time. ARBPIA combined with the usual issues around celebrity BLPs is not an appealing prospect for anyone. I am a bit surprised at the request Fowler posts a shorter comment, as their first one here is a reasonably short one. CMD (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
You misread, CMD. It can be 1 sentence. I said: Template:Tq.
Obviously, Fowler&fowler's 3-paragraph response is relatively brief, but has zero diffs currently (though, he promised to bring some later for some items, which is fine). And obviously Packer&Tracker 10-paragraph OP is not brief, but has diffs (though once I realized they were mobile diffs, I stopped reading).
I contend that if the two complainants subscribe to my 1-sentence advise, fully, they'll increase Template:Tq. Which I think is sound advise. But they don't have to do it. They're both free to believe that I'm wrong, or to just not bother, whatever it is. Again, it's all the same to me at this point. No good deed, etc. It is what it is. Added: Packer&Tracker's shortened complaint below still uses mobile diffs. Okay. El_C 04:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, @Chipmunkdavis, El C: I will post diffs, although I have no heart for this. Wikipedia is impotent in the face of bias. It is the main reason it is not considered reliable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, don't do it for me, Fowler&fowler, since I'm done here. I was just explaining my position, and puzzlement, at your vehemence in response to my rather standard advise. That's it. El_C 13:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@El C: Beg-pardon for inconvenience on my part - regarding mobile diff. I did it now in my recent post. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Good. That's a promising sign, Packer&Tracker. I'm still out, though, obviously through no direct fault of your own. I wish you both success in finding an amicable end to this. El_C 14:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Wait, no, it didn't work, Packer&Tracker. Here's are simple ways to do it using your first diff as an example: [28] (mobile) → [29] (desktop). Or alternatively: Special:MobileDiff/1116035193Special:diff/1116035193. And piped: diffdiff / diffdiff. HTH. El_C 14:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@El C: Putting it on hold for a moment, the editor's deceptive notice of quiting S.Asian article and last line of it ? Is such behaviour valid ? (saying that male user wrongly disguise themself as female ?) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Packer&Tracker, I agree, that entire thing in the new notice at the top of Fowler&fowler's talk page that reads (in part): Template:Tq (emphasis added) — I have no idea what that's about, but on the face of it, it sounds quite inappropriate the way that's worded[[Added: ES] But whatever, in light of him inexplicably taking that action in the first place as a response to my rather standard and neutral advise (and seemingly the mentality that he's owed something from me), I'm gonna leave all that to others. If I could have nothing further to do with all of this, that'd be ideal for me. Ultimately, It's Not My Cross to Bear. That said, you, however, should not continue to edit a user talk page after said user had asked to stop. That, too, is inappropriate. //Out (well, hopefully, this time). El_C 17:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I would not post at their talk page, but even in their recent reply, their never ending brusqueness is still intact, where they dragged poor User:पाटलिपुत्र and vented out by branding him/her as "inveterate POV-pusher" - special:Diff/1116644991 I won't be surprised that it will be swept under the carpet as well among many other of his random personal attacks (their nescience about Md. Ghuri but still a desire to counter my so called "Hindu right" narrative is apparent from a number of factual error, pov, plethora of verbiage they inserted in lead which I will point out once they will be finished) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@El C:: I have reverted my user page and user talk page to the respective versions of the days before this ANI began, the rationale being expressed in this diff. Although it was not an expression of vehemence but rather of extreme despondency. I apologize deeply to all concerned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Od Some diffs →[30], [31] , [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [Please briefly go through, to get a better picture of it]

1.) Firstly regarding Akshay Kumar's article and for pushing Hindutva branded lead, every public figure at one point or other have political leanings but that doesn't mean that their lead will cover that part or a random comment (to teach about native Indian rulers over the Turks in the discourse of school) at film promotion worth a inclusion in article. Unless the actor is very clearly involved with a political party, it would be all but pov-pushing

→ This part is best explained by the involved senior editor there - [37]

→ The main issue with Akshay page as well as the others, I pointed out apart from WP:OWN behaviour is uncivil commentaries, let's assume that I got it wrong [38], don't think the other editors who shares the same view got that wrong either - [39] & [40] (both are veteran editors around for over a decade)

2.) Now coming to Muhammad of Ghor's article - they are indeed right that they posted decent sources, but they didn't mentioned that 70% of them didn't even mentioned the subject on whom the argument was supposed to be (Md. Ghuri and if it does then it was extremely brief to the point of being vague)

3.) It's clear case of misusing the tertiary source policy to remove only a selected chunk of article (religion section) by deviating the main argument. (look at tiresome posting on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor where Muhammad is not even remotely mentioned in most cases); I am open to discuss that part considering F&f bring something explicit to the table about the subject. I actually conceded rather easily on removing K.S. Lal quotebox to avoid a needless bother see - [41] & didn't even reverted blanket removal of religion section [42] untill today where they introduce a pov-factually incorrect lead (entirely different from the body) [43] only to get reverted by पाटलिपुत्र. (see here [44] - I explained their factually incorrect addition in 5th & 6th point)

4.) To sum up my part; I won't be proposing a T-ban as that's never a solution but keeping aside his pov pushing [45], batteground mentality [46] which concerned other much senior contributors as well despite their (F&f's) competence as a editor. Leaving all these points aside, their uncivil conduct and frequent bashing of their colleagues as Hindu nationalists, abusing historians as R.S.S. hitman and then playing innocent card is not acceptable.

5.) Every editor doesn't matter despite the seniority/juniority factor, must need to be civil and accomodating during discussion regarding contentious topics (by staying relevant to the topic and not deviating needlesly) which is apparently my main concern leaving aside all other issues. Yes, as RP said, the user has been around for years but that doesn't mean that they can get so many free passes, infact that's even more unfortunate. I included other's beef (briefly) with F&f only to highlight that off late it's going on at several fronts and I am not the only one who is complaining about it.

Conclusion:- Please take a look at their recent notice of unwatching S.Asian articles as well on their userpage where they used verbals yet again, apart from their usual brusqueness, they also accused (indirectly me) that some male editors here wrongly disguised themselves as female - that's just baloney and blatant personal attack.∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's statement


Please do not post in this section. Post in the section below.

Religion section and Hindu majoritarian bias


( Note: I removed the Religion section, citing an administrator's comments about another article with similar issues of bias (diff and diff) and its relation to WP:ONUS; so it is not currently there in the article, but my removal has been disputed by Packer&Tracker.)

  1. Packer&Tracker's "Religion" subsection gratuitously vilified South Asia's medieval-era Islamic conquerers, engaged in original research, and promoted WP:UNDUE content associated with India's Hindu majoritarianism. This was done without the necessary nuance, irony, modulation or narrative distancing required. Here are some examples from the added Religion section:
    • "When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing impetuously down the face of the mountain of blue. The army of Islam was completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Kaffirs swiftly departed to the fire of hell." (This egregious example was in the quote box.)
    • When we quote medieval chroniclers matter-of-factly in a serial fashion without modulation or narrative distancing, we are no longer just adding the occasional vignette, we are using them vilify Islam in Wikipedia's voice.
  1. To aid discussions in Talk:Muhammad of Ghor, I have rewritten the lead on the subpage of my talk page (diff). All sources are modern.(diff) and the rationale for using them is in the: diff (Updated 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Packer&Tracker's previous blocks, warnings, and editing practice
  1. They were blocked on March 29, 2022 for two months from editing Persecution of Hindus by admin Bishonen. (diff
  2. They were warned on 11 April 2022 by admin RegentsPark on their edits on Prithviraj Chauhan and its talk page; the warning ended with, "(you're likely to end up with a topic ban on South Asian history because that tone is not productive.") diff)
  3. The were blocked the following day for 31 hours (diff) for making personal attacks on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan. (diff)

My behavior

  1. I have sometimes been accused of being brusque. As proof of this diffs are offered, and quite often the same diffs seem to make the rounds, attempting to measure the empty portion of my glass of charity and civility on Wikipedia. What is seldom mentioned or simply taken for granted is how full that glass is. I have an extensive history in South Asia related topics which despite WP:ARBIPA is riven by scores of disputes. There are also scores of examples of my cooperating with other editors to build encyclopedic content. Although I usually make amends in instances of intemperate language, I agree, collegiality is non-negotiable. I apologize and will continue to make an effort to improve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)



पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs), (the Indic script in Sanskrit is transliterated as Patliputra in English) has not only contributed text on temple desecration to the Muhammad of Ghor article along with Packer&Tracker but has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles, 2. of attempting to reconstitute pre-Islamic Indian artefacts in Wikipedia illustrations, 3. displaying xenophobia and expressing or implying Hindu majoritarian views, 4. baiting me to edit war, keeping careful tabs and taking me to ANI; they have done so three or four times, and when the decision has not gone their way, they have persistently queried the administrator to the point that the administrator closed the thread; 5 Patliputra has added content antithetical to Islamic conquerors of India, and by implication, to Islam but without nuance or narrative distancing to a number of articles ("spamming")

  1. Comments of other editors on copying and pasting, and image spamming ( diff)
    1. I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    2. पाटलिपुत्र, Johnbod and F&F are absolutely correct. Even if it is allowed, simply copying and pasting is a poor editorial practice and makes for poor readability. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. On reconstitution (diff):
    1. @पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style "reconstitutions" are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi. The Sanchi capital has more than enough surviving structure that the reader can infer the size and composition of the crowning wheel, in my opinion. ... And again, to reiterate, any depiction of a restored or original state must clearly look like a drawing/illustration, be labeled as such, and have minimal detail, and should preferably come from an RS or be a copy. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  3. On xenophobia and expression of Hindu majoritarianism(diff):
    1. "An actual Indian" पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    2. "The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    3. "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      1. (Administrative response): The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for. The article discusses religious pluralism in India at great length; the images in question are entirely appropriate, and if they're removed, it should not be for the reasons given above. ... Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Persistently querying an administrator on an ANI decision (diff)
    1. This page is not a proxy for ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    2. They have continued to bait me in ways that are sanctioned, appearing on the FA Darjeeling a week ago (a page they had never edited before and on whose FAR user:Dwaipayanc and I had worked for six months). Without a previous discussion on the talk page, Patliputra added a large map in the infobox. This was done a few weeks after the FA passed the review, during which the decision not to have any map in the infobox was made. (diff)
      1. Upon my reverting their edit, they opened a talk page thread diff. Luckily I was able to find a compact map and added it to the infobox to avoid a long discussion.
  5. Finally, edits and misinterpretations antithetical to Islamic conquerors of India, and by implication, to Islam, which are simultaneously added without nuance or narrative distancing to a number of articles ("spamming"):
    1. (Background) On 19 July 2022, I cited a 2020 book in the Excavation section of Lion capital of Ashoka. diff The book was written by the late Frederick Asher, a University of Minnesota historian who specialized in South Asian art history or architecture history.
    2. On 10 August 2022, 07:17 Patliputra cited the same book (page 74) to extend a sentence in the lead. To the sentence, "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." Patliputra added the sentence fragment, "or may have been overthrown by Muslim invaders in the 10-12th century CE." (diff)
      1. On page 74, Asher had written: "Because the pillar was found in several fragments, writers generally assume that it was damaged willfully. Daya Ram wrote, 'It follows... that the columns was overthrown about the 10th, 11th or 12th century A.D. ...' Template:Tq" In other words, at the end, Asher distanced himself from a commonplace inference by offering contradictory evidence.
    3. After I reverted the edit, based on my reading of Asher, Patliputra, (on 10 August, 2022, 15:22) changed his addition to, " following what many authors assume to be willfull destruction of the pillar, possibly related to Muslim invasions in the 10-12th century CE. " but again leaving out the nuance and narrative distancing in Asher. diff "

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


  1. Proposed that user:Packer&Tracker:
    1. Voluntarily stay away from editing the article Muhammad of Ghor and its sub-pages such as Siege of Lahore, until a consensus has been reached in the talk page discussion between TrangaBellam and Packer&Tracker on the text of the lead of Muhammad of Ghor; I am continuing to work on an NPOV version of that lead on a subpage of my user page: User:Fowler&fowler/Muhammad_of_Ghor.
    2. Or: Voluntarily stay away from editing Muhammad of Ghor and sub-pages until two months have elapsed, whichever period is shorter,
    3. Or failing both: Be partially blocked from editing Muhammad of Ghor and sub-pages for two months (similar to the manner they were partially blocked from editing Prithviraj Chauhan in April, though the issues then were somewhat different.) As yet, the talk page discussion on religion between user:TrangaBellam and user:Packer&Tracker (mainly) does not seem to be making progress. But, I'm hopeful.
  2. Proposed that user:Patliputra:
    1. Be topic banned from South Asian Islamic history broadly construed (1000–1765), for a period of two (2) months, whether or not they have edited other pages of that period besides the ones listed in paragraph five above. ((I had originally proposed that a no fault two-way interaction ban be implemented between user:Patliputra and I, but that does not get to the heart of the matter here, which is the promotion of biased content involving South Asia's Islamic history across a range of articles. In light of the evidence in paragraph five in the sub-section above (which begins with, "Finally, edits and misinterpretations ...," I have amended the proposal.)
  3. How the closing admin addresses my behavior issues is up to them. Still, I can assure them that I acknowledge my brusque language and will sincerely make a more concerted effort to avoid it in all my interactions on Wikipedia. I offer an unconditional apology not just to Packer&Tracker and Patliputra, but to all. The bottom line for me, though, is that even if I am blocked from all editing on Wikipedia for my lack of civility for two months, six months, a year, or permanently, the actions I have proposed for both user:Packer&Tracker and user:Patliputra are urgently needed, for these editors have violated core Wikipedia values of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Promotion of fringe and biased views is no longer blatant as it was in October 2006 when I arrived on Wikipedia; it is done in small doses, in different ways:
    1. for example by user:Patliputra by spamming the main respondent, user:SamuelRiv, at WP:RS/N—who had agreed that the use of old sources in support of an assertion is undue when little or no modern sources speak to it—with an indiscriminate list of citations in this edit and eliciting in turn this response.
    2. or by Packer&Tracker by dismissing off-handedly the Wikipedia policy on the use of WP:TERTIARY (in this instance widely used undergraduate or first-year graduate text-books published by scholarly publisher) in the evaluation of undue weight on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor in this edit of this week.
    • It is the cumulative effect, across a range of articles as seen in the case of both these editors, who in the wake of their edits have created WP:FALSEBALANCE, that is dangerous (see this reply by a respondent at NPOV noticeboard). For it strikes at the very root of Wikipedia's reliability and trust, and takes years to root out.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Updated (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC))

PS Patliputra in a counter-proposal below has asked that I strike out instances of my past incivilities. This I will not do even if it means that I am permanently banned from Wikipedia, for not only will examples of incivility not remain but so also examples of the contexts that drive editors such as I to resort to incivility, thereby creating the impression that we can create WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE as long as we do it politely. Patliputra has also suggested that I be thanked for my contributions. What would be the point of that? Wikipedia editors who know my work have already thanked me enough. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I have been thanked by the OED which borrowed the definition of the British Raj and by the occasional academic or journalist who has lifted entire paragraphs from my articles in their published works, for example, this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion continued

The warning is old, when I had just started editing Wikipedia and knew nothing about any Wiki policies back then. I had apologized for the mistake.[47] Fowler have thanked me on multiple instances since. [48][49][50][51]. It's only when I differ with him, he brings the warning in discussion. Apart from that, I have reverted Fowler's edits only once. Also, I had been discussing the issues on the talk page, even before the edits. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)



→ @Fowler&fowler: Well, you can't accuse others of edit waring when you have been guilty of it yourself just like on blanket removal, regardless this is just another of your ploy to deviate from the topic - the due concerns on my part is already listed in detail at t/p and onus is on you to clear your part (again factal inaccuracy, pov pushing, unrerather then accusing others.

→ So, You are now using my 7-month old block to tilt it your way ? (When I was barely 300 edits old) - It's been 7 months and around 4k edits on my part afterwards that went largely in a collaborative manner

→ If I start dugging in then, your personal attacks, repeated brusqueness might fill up a page with plethora of diff's (the fact that you have already been on ANI for it twice within a short span is another absolute given), though I choosed to be relevant by only highlighting your recent brusqueness, one of you removed from your own user page a hour ago as well, only diff. is that you get away frequently with such behaviour, though others generally don't.

→ Please reply to my concerns at talk page regarding your edits instead of using blocks and warnings issued half a year ago in contrast to it, the one your recived for it is a bit recent as well- diff. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC) @Fowler&fowler: Just for the record my random act of kindness award to User:Akshaypatill was for providing me with Andre Wink 2020 book's pdf and that's only communication I had with him in a year of editing and got not interset in your past interactions with him/her either.

→ The issues with your lead (factual inaccuracies, pov pushing, unrelated verbiage, omitting military debacles of the ruler are already highlighted by me at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor

→ You will be the last one to complain about blanket removal of other editors, when you yourself do it multiple times.

Please don't deviate from topic, my concern about your sourcing as well is already in detail explained at talk page. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

P&t reply

Just for my clarity on the recent post by User:Fowler&fowler
→ The user only picked a few of diffs from user:Shshsh to make it appear that they were all but civil throughout the argument and as far as I can see they were blatantly opposed for pushing their pov:-
→ "Who cares? He's an actor, not a political figure. You better keep your enthusiasm with Hindu nationalist movements away from articles on actors. Everyone has opinions (honestly, I didn't know all that until you just said it here but as I said, who cares anyway), Raj Kapoor did, and Dilip Kumar did, and so do the Khans, but they are actors - it's not what they're known for. I think a sentence about someone who's been public about the party they vote or something could do, but other than that, unless it gets significant coverage much to the point where they clearly become known for that, it's hardly notable" →[52]
→ Their uncivil behaviour - "Are you kidding? Is this an ego trip against other editors or actual willingness to contribute and improve this page? I think your history shows more words than actions, and this hostile explosion of ego here is exactly why many reputable WP editors do not wish to collaborate with you and have often complained about your own POV pushing. Please be warned here that your threats will not be tolerated any longer.
As for sources - it's never only about sourcing - WP:DUE is a huge part of writing articles. Please also note WP:BLP. They will lead this article, as will WP:CON. You should know that already. You do your job and others will do theirs', and we always have WP policy and other routes to achieving consensus and bringing a broaded number of opinions to fore" →[53] - this one came after F&f promised to give them a good run for the money: see [54] -
→ Here is another involved senior editor who opposed their battleground attitude and pov pushing, see "LOL. This isn't Twitter. Kindly take your battleground mentality there" by Krimuk2.0[55] - battleground mentality.. (It's very easy to add a few line to make it appear as you want but on broader picture, there antagonistic behaviour was not a sweet headache for the involved editors)
2): Now on Muhammad of Ghor page, their wild allegation that I am using sources from right-wing scholars is anything but another attempt to deviate from the topic sources i added there are from major scholars of medieval India and bar K.S. Lal none of them are even remotely close to it - the sources which donot agree with their pov, they do call them dubious, unreliable and dated.
→ The editor is not knowledgable about the subject (Md Ghuri) which is apparent from insertion of their edit - [56] and instead accused other for being pushing unreliable cruft, for which I explained them on their talk page:- [57] (lead summarizes the body which is quite a basic norm)
→ I did this with their own high quality tertiary ref. and cited the other 3 as well whom they called dated and sub standard - just for the record those 3 "dated sources" were from (Satish Chandra 2007), (Md. Habib 1981 ed Nizami), (David Thomas 2018) the first two are/were major scholars of S.Asia and explicity of medieval period and the last one is from David Thomas who had his life researching about the Ghurians.
→ I didn't even changed the running name in the article (Mu'izz al-Din to Muhammad of Ghor) without consulting all involved editors there and actually improved on factually incorrect inf. there which was there since its creation namely - his only daughter which never got any mention, his forged gravesite, his brother's death year - 1203 not 1202, his C. Asia campaigns (created Battle of Andkhud) and against the Ghaznawids post his rout at Mt Abu - 1178 (created Siege of Lahore (1186), Had I have been only intersted in pushing only a Hindu right version, there was no meaning of creating Battle of Andkhud and Siege of Lahore (1186) which are not related to this movement by any means. (actually removed far fetched Hindu right forged version of Prithviraj killing him in Ghazna)
Lastly →Please remove the forged and uncivil notice of not editing S.Asian articles as it was nothing but most likely a stunt to get commiseration of others which barely lasted for 24 hours . ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I had posted a lengthy review of their "pov", "factually incorrect, "verbiaged", "absurd comparison" lead which doesn't look any distant from a pov blog and is anything lead of a neutral encyclopedic articles with WP:OR (pov) as well like :- easy victory- Tarain (1192), expunging a military debacle which ruined all his plan for conquest of western India; listed them all. (the lead generally is a summary of citations in the body and not a place to introduce pov, factually incorrect, unrelated verbiage either)
→ The core of there edit comes from copy-pasting Richard Eaton (2019) whose basic factual inaccuracies I listed on the article's talk page with multiple contradicting reliable sources from top scholars like Andre Wink, Satish Chandra, C.E Bosworth, K.A. Nizami, Md. Habib, Aniruddha Ray, David Thomas etc, do have a look at it as well. (no issue in citing Eaton's earlier works bar this one - despite my general disaccord with his scholarship regarding religion bit)
→ I have given up on their brusqueness (listed several instances in last few days itself not from me but other editors as well, which they cherrry picked to make it appear that their pov lead was getting upvoted by senior editors)
→ My frequent posts on their talk page was more primarily on their forged and uncivil notice of quitting S. Asia articles particularly with last few lines where they as usually were making uncivil commentaries on some editors and the bona fide of it turned to be a deceptive one. Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Packer&Tracker, could you please write shorter comments? This discussion is difficult to go through because of its length. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Nythar: It's not easy to explain about the issue with proper context in less words. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure (likely)


Disclaimer:- This will be most likely my last reponse here, it will be a long one addressing all the issues, bear with me

→ While, I don't think that it's very necessary to reopen old wounds here (on warnings and blocks - I recieved half a year ago); although I do agree that my conduct at Persecution of Hindus especially (that time) was deplorable and the two month block was warranted, having said that it's been some time since then (7months) and over 3,500 edits which mostly were in line with WP policies, including appropirate use of Red Warn & Twinkle tools (mostly), F&f is bringing them up here largely to deviate from the premier issue I and some other senior editors had with them - all in recent past (last week or so, including two reports at ANI one of them already ended with a warning)

→ You can't expect a consensus to build over night (on their remark that it's not going anywhere with TB); when you yourself frequently advocate that it took months in some contentious cases, though, early days but I am alright to engage with TrangaBellam (after few days to press upon the argument of including Religion section) given their rational and to the point arguments, though I do not agree with them on their take on historian Andre Wink, but that's content dispute and will be resolved (hopefully) there without much drama (optimistic)

→ I do agree, my post on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor (clarification on typo i.e. 1148 -1173 - not certain about 1173 as well coz Minhaj al-Siraj and Firshta had 1169, another error in Eaton-2019 as Ghazni was not permanently annexed untill 1170 which he claimed in 1148, although this is not the only blatant factual error, see the whole thread for better picture) especially overnight could have been slightly better worded (first few lines) - but this doesn't seems very equitable (overloaded bit) coming from someone who was without anything accusing others of faking their ethnic/ gender identity (male as females/Pakistanis as Indians or vice-versa diff:- (not just overloaded it was degrading enough to warrants them a block there itself)

→ The frequent and tiresome accusation on me for promoting a Hindu right pov doesn't sit very well either with someone who created Battle of Andkhud & Siege of Lahore (1186) - two of his military campaigns which no one from Hindu rights (who are only intersted in his Indian campaigns - namely Kaydhara -1178, Tarain-I & Tarain-II and other naive/hillarious argument of his 17 failed invasions) have any idea about or if they do, it's very shabby one (both of them were rated as B-Class articles immediately on first review, which suggests that I do have a decent knowledge about the subject)

→ Now to brought down the curtain on my part, as they want me to get blocked from Muhammad of Ghor or stay away for two months (an article where I recieved a anti-vandalism barnstar diff and improved on it's gruesome factual inaccuracy with proper WP:HISTRS) & also on Delhi Sultanate (Heck, I barely contributed there apart from reverting vandals or just replacing a blog with proper RS - diff - it's clearly in line with their recent vow to root out the so called "Hindu nationalist bias" or according to them "villification of Muslims" from the lead of these articles - as they couldn't succeed in their ambition at Muhammad of Ghor (reverted by another editor as well against whom they used a year old hounding warning to get away); Anyway, their lead was - factually incorrect, povish with dispensable veribage, asburd comparisons & so on - listed them all here with contrasting RS.

→ There is no reason to support there filmsy argument of using so-called up to date sources, even if there are blatant inaccuracies in them, neither the sources, I added up in counter were from a century or two ago, most of them were from last 50 years and many were from post-1990 period.

→ I am contented to cooperate with anyone given the arguments are rational, to the point (not posting tiresome collection of unrelated sources, like they are doing which mentions about subject brief and vaguely - big no to Eaton 2019 -given the number of basic inaccuracies already highlighted, alright with his previous works) and have consensus among multiple reliable sources. It's a wrap on my part here (hopefully). ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

OR claims


→ For general persecution of the Ismailis:- Template:Talk quote (Satish Chandra 2004; pp:-28) →Template:Talk quote (C.E. Bosworth 1968; pp:-168) (Hindu right don't care about hosility of Sunnis over Ismailis either)

Template:Talk quote (Shafique Virani; 2007; pp:-100)

→ Destruction of temples in Kashi:- Template:Talk quote (Andre Wink 1991; pp:-333)

(Mohammad Habib 1981; pp:-116)

(Satish Chandra 2007; pp:-67)

→ Large-scale conversion of Khokhars/Buddhists:- Template:Talk quote (Mohamad Habib; 1981, pp:-133-134)

The quote box and massacres was already to K.S Lal and I removed it myself before the blanket removal, in any case since the section is already removed this is rather basless accusations, I am not intersted in arguing much either here as my closing comments are already put in earlier. I don't want to stress much over it and isn't intersted in wasting more time but since it's allegation of putting OR, thats why this was posted (hopefully it's last one before admin take a call) No inention of vilifying anyone. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

On appology


→ I am not very much bothered about the appology part (have done it so many times as पाटलिपुत्र pointed out in comments below), but just for the record, their uncivil and forged notice of quitting S. Asian articles (as they appeared on the same article within hours) where they were without anything alleging other editors of faking their Gender/Ethnic identity - (diff) that was good enough to warrants them a block just there, ignoring everything else - pity though that they were not even warned/notified for that.

→ I am amused that how they are still in a position to propose a 2-month block from Md Ghuri's article (for me) & topic ban from Islamic history of S. Asian articles (पाटलिपुत्र) - just for the fact that we added sourced content (which they initially called WP:OR but now branded it as fringe or insulting) which in their opinion is associated with the so-called Hindutva movement and villifying Islam (typical apologetic attitude for Islam) - their frequent bashing and branding of reliable sources from reputed academicians as fringe, non-reliable, dated etc. is another of their behaviour which is quite annoying to say the least.

→ Seeing the latest comments in the section below, I was taken aback that how the editors, branded me as a antagonist here as well, to clear my part here, before F&f arrived on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor with a discourteous tone branding all as Hindu nationalists (quite obssesed with Hindutva movements as well - diff), take a look at my conduct on the article where even for a trivial issues like running name in article - I consulted every involved editor there, see diff.

→ The main reason why I contributed to this page coz, I was surprised to see such a error-ridden article earlier this year for a important historical figure, that's why I improved on number of errors in the article namely - his forged tomb in Dhamiak (which is in Ghazni), his daughter (as previous versions claimed that he didn't had a offspring), his brother death year, their early carrers and military expeditions etc. I am not at all associated with any political movements or have any political leanings (zero interset in politics and beyond my area of prowess) and even if I do have one, I prefer to not reflect that in my professionalism or in my communication at talk pages. I was genuine throughout in my effort on that article.

→ To say, that to take the article back to that old error-ridden version is like a a slap in the face of all my hard-work there and that too without any reason on my part on that article (like a good reason to prevent me from editing that page apart from their absurd accusations of villifying Islam and that all)

→ Even in future, I don't have any issue in collaborating (on two way IBAN) - with any editor on any issue, given they remain rational, to the point and not always be rigid in conceding on an issue where they apparently lost, Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

sockpuppet indian users


I agree with Fowler&fowler, there is lots of Hindu nationalist editors whom are abusing their editing responsibilities above Afghanistan and Pakistan historical articles, possibly they are one group or sockpuppet users including ∆ P&t ♀√, Utcursch, Akshaypatill. They revert everything with reliable sources and pushing their POV on it. if Wikipedia become a POV information of powerful users then nobody will trust on Wikipedia’s informative articles. Please take some serious legal action on it and don’t let to Wikipedia become a place of POV of powerful users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC) struck sock comments--RegentsPark (comment) 21:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Accusing others of sock puppetry without evidence is considered a personal attack. Don't do it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
no one is crazy to accuse others for sock puppetry unless who seen something wrong, you can check their recent contributions and it will tell everything and that’s evidence, such as now also the RegentsPark as a indian user are supporting thier indian editors for vandalism and pov pushing in a proxy way, why you guys can’t see the truth, these things made Wikipedia a false information resource for whom looking for information or reading, every Indian editors are edit articles for their own POV and racism or nationalist beliefs, for example the user ∆ P&t ♀√
Removed 13,704 additions with reliable sources from article Muhammad of Ghor [58]
In order to support their indian user Akshaypatill’s POV editing (unexplained removal) and User:Packer&Tracker are tryna always hide her/his disruptive editing and nationalist vandalism with random no related WP codes and that’s not make any sense actually, on the Muhammad of Ghor’s article user Akshaypatill started unexplained removal of 13,704 with reliable sources additions without engagement on talk page with other editor and it turned into a edit war [59] [60] and the edit war continued by User:Packer&Tracker [61] on behalf of Akshaypatill, it’s happens while both of them ignored the bold, revert, discuss cycle term and they violated the three-revert policy, this is a proxy game and I really tired of this much nationalist editors and racism in Wikipedia

Pataliputra's statement


One more dispute, again triggered by Fowler&fowler's inflamatory approach to collaborative editing.... Fowler&fowler is a valuable editor, but unfortunately a recurrently incivil and bad-mannered one, leading to much unnecessary disruption. His expertise in some areas of South Asia is undeniable, although he seems fairly out of his depth in matters related to ancient history and art (one example), and repeatedly resorts to "wild OR" as pointed out by User:Johnbod [62]. His typical battle lines revolve around the Muslim vs Hindu issue, and anyone contradicting him will be immediately branded an "Islamophobic" [63] or an "Hindu nationalist" [64] (for the record, I am related to neither faith, and have no relation whatsoever to India despite my user name). When in disagreement, Fowler&fowler is unfortunately rude, brutal and inflammatory, and content disputes which could be resolved by the usual discussion process inevitably heat up because of the rabidness and the invectives. Fowler&fowler has received numerous administrative warnings already for his systematic un-Wikipedian editorial behaviour, including recently 2 warnings for edit warring [65] (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and [66] (by Admin User:Bishonen), and 1 warning for personnal attacks and incivility [67] (by Admin User:El C, following this), to no avail. I dislike having to post here, and I personally value Fowler&fowler as a Wikipedia content contributor, but the behavioural issues have been going on for too long: some more radical measures have to be taken to make Fowler&fowler finally understand that incivility and personal attacks are unacceptable behaviours on Wikipedia and are extremely disruptive. I will not comment further, and will not respond to the predictable litany of abuse that will be crafted in response to this post. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to Fowler&fowler's "Patliputra" statement above


A few comments on User:Fowler&fowler's "Patliputra" statement above, which was predictably crafted in reponse to my post:
1) Fowler&fowler writes that I "contributed text on temple desecration to the Muhammad of Ghor article along with Packer&Tracker" [68]. This is basically untrue. As far as I am aware, I did not contribute a single word to Packer&Tracker's paragraph on Religion, about which Fowler&fowler has expressed a full list of issues [69]. Furthermore, I do not have any opinion about this specific paragraph, the details of which are beyond my area of expertise. The only remotely related content I added was derived from the Ghurid dynasty article, related to the military campaigns, using sources such as Asher (2020) [70]. This content essentially remains in Fowler&fowler's last preferred version of the article [71] and has not been challenged. So much for the attempts at depicting some sort of "Indian/Hindu coalition vs Fowler&fowler" (and again I have no relation whatsoever to India despite my user name).
2) All other elements provided by Fowler&fowler (1 to 4 [72]) are besides the point of this ANI thread, and seem to confuse a few Talk Page discussions, over a period of several years, with actual Wikipedia offenses.... Hopefully, we are allowed to have Talk Page discussions on Wikipedia, and sometimes even disagreements. This has to be done factually, in a cool and civil manner without making personal attacks. This is what I have always endeavoured to do, but what Fowler&fowler has repeatedly failed to observe as shown by his multiple Administrative warnings ( [73][74][75].... and these are only the recent ones). Again, I appreciate Fowler&fowler as a contributor, but he has to understand that civility with other users is non-negotiable. In so many instances in the past, Fowler&fowler has made amends and made beautiful promises not to continue personal attacks, only to break his promise as soon as discussions heat up a bit. In order to prevent such recurrent toxicity, a clear message has to be sent by Admins that Fowler&fowler's incivilities and personal attacks are unacceptable.
3) As to paragraph 5, Fowler&fowler seems to overreact everytime he feels that Islam might be slighted (and here accuses me of edits "antithetical to Islamic conquerors of India, and by implication, to Islam" [76], hmmm, no less... hopefully I will not be subjected to a Fatwa....). For the record, I am totally unrelated to either Islam or Hinduism, and have no bias towards any religion whatsoever (I actually appreciate all religions for their cultural and historical aspects). In this instance, I have simply been reporting an aspect of 12th century Muslim exactions in India in a few closely related articles, closely paraphrasing one of the foremost and most recent experts on the question (Asher 2020): "Template:Tq"[77]... As far as I know, reporting facts, as described by reliable sources, is simply what we do on Wikipedia, and this has primacy over individual sensitivities...
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Unconditional apology" by Fowler&fowler


@Fowler&fowler: You are offering an "unconditional apology" above, in the sentence: Template:Tq [78]. If your apologies are sincere, why don't you start by striking your past incivilities and personnal attacks? I know the task is rather titanesque, but you could start from some of the latest ones (a sample: [79][80][81][82][83][84][85]), and then go back in time progressively... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)



Given User:Fowler&fowler's inability to refrain from personal attacks and incivilities over the years, despite repeated apologies and promises to correct himself, and despite official administrative warnings for "personnal attacks and incivilities" (the most recent one being this one, by Admin User:El C following this administrative admonition: "But, again, out-the-blue attacks, or any attacks for that matter, those needs to stop, like, immediately. The only reason you're not facing sanctions of considerable severity right now is because you've had a good track record in past years. But the good will that has bought you only goes so far, and I submit to you that you've used much of it up at this point." [86]), the Wikipedia community should offer a strong, although symbolic, message that such behaviour is not acceptable anymore:
1) Fowler&fowler should be blocked from editing for a short period of time, either as he himself suggested Template:Tq [87] or, probably more appropriately, for a symbolically short duration, such as a few days or 1 week.
2) More importantly, Fowler&fowler should be requested to clean up his past incivilities and personnal attacks (for example by striking them from Talk Pages, although edit summaries will unfortunately remain...), before returning to normal editing, so that he can demonstrate his true intent to amend, and more importantly, so that South Asian Talk pages can be cleaned up from too many inflammatory statements.
3) Other issues mentioned in this thread essentially revolve around content issues, which can be amicably resolved (or have already been resolved long ago) through civil talk page discussions.
4) Fowler&fowler should nevertheless be thanked again for his productive and knowledgeable contributions to Wikipedia, and greatly encouraged to continue contributing in a civil manner. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


  • This comment is beneath one of Pataliputra's, but only because this is the bottom of the sprawling and chaotic thread. I address all the participants here and not just Pataliputra.
As encyclopaedists, our task is precis: we summarize complex matters clearly and succinctly. If you can't write a simple, clear summary that includes clear citations with evidence of all the claims you make, you are in the wrong hobby.
When dealing with editors from India I feel it would be unreasonable of us to exclude mobile diffs. Those of us in Western Europe where everyone has access to a desktop computer with reliable wi-fi need to consider that not everyone has our advantages. A high proportion of Indians are trying to contribute from mobile phones or tablets because the alternative is not to contribute at all.
And while I'm talking about cultural relativity, civility standards vary from place to place and in India, they are often relatively high. Personally it has been my experience that editors originating from India tend to display, and expect, higher standards of civility than might prevail elsewhere. What to me might be a relatively mildly uncivil remark is more offensive out there.
I think Fowler&fowler's unconditional and very handsome apology, above, is very helpful and I wish Pataliputra would (a) accept it with good grace and (b) reciprocate in similar terms for their own behaviour. I can certainly see benefits to a two-way iban between these editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Even though mobile sucks, mobile diffs should never be excluded as a rule. No one should be forced to convert them to desktop. Here, however, this was only recommended so as to increase Template:Tq. A recommendation which the OP has chosen to adopt. I think it's fair to tell a user whose complaint has 20 mobile diffs, that these display terrible on desktop. Why should they not know? El_C 03:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, let us not patronise Indians. They are fools if they think they can write an encycopedia using a mobile phone. The use of mobiles is more likely to be a convenience, their convenience. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the point was that some don't have an alternative to mobile, in India more so than the West. But in that instance, if they are diligent enough, it can be done. That includes converting mobile diffs into desktop — which otherwise, is liable to get inconvenient to them, when few if any outside reviewers bother to look through their (mobile) diff evidence. El_C 08:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I find your words very offensive. I'm an Indian and have used and am currently using a mobile device. But you'd never ever find me using mobile diffs or anything like that even when I edit via mobile, because I personally do not find that easy to parse and expect that it is similar for others. Because someone has chosen to not do that does not give you an opportunity to bring the entire community under a single blanket and call them fools. The problem with Indians editing using mobile is not that "they are fools", it is that the foundation has chosen to ignore the editing needs of what is now a majority demographic of Wikipedia visitors — the mobile users. Your outrage is misplaced. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 10:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
^That^ 🐻ears repeating — Template:Tq El_C 12:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Not everyone's technically minded. If you asked me to convert mobile diffs to desktop ones, I would go and look it up because I wouldn't know how, and some editors wouldn't bother to look it up. The risk with implying that mobile diffs won't get looked at, is creating a disincentive to report issues.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK, if someone lands on a mobile diff and they want to see the non-mobile version, all they need to do is scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the "Desktop" link. Or they could do as I do and load User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion in their common.js and they'll always see non-mobile diffs, regardless of whether the person creating the diff made it mobile or not. CodeTalker (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is reality, S Marshall, not an ideal type. Mobile diffs won't be looked at so much, certainly not +20 of em at once, because mobile overall is poorly optimized. In this case, though, since the OP did express an interest in converting these to desktop diffs, I instructed her on how to go about it. Which appears to have worked out fine. El_C 19:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Btw, 90 percent of the time, I just convert the mobile diffs to desktop myself. But usually, it isn't a set of +20 and/or I'm not that pressed for time at that time. But sometimes, times. El_C 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. One mobile diff is not a big deal, but dealing with a mob of mobile diffs is painful. Disputes on ANI are attended to be volunteers and increasing their parsing overhead is, perhaps, not the best strategy to employ. Make a case and take some time to present it properly is not a lot to ask for. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather ask the WMF to spend some of their $400 million on making it so when you click on a diff, it shows you mobile or desktop based on whether you're currently using mobile or desktop, irrespective of whether the poster was using mobile or desktop. This is trivially easy to accomplish as a technical matter, and many (most?) websites don't have this crossover problem between their mobile and desktop versions. This could be solved with a script or a bot that changes external diff links to internal wikilinks. Levivich (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This grievance has killed hundreds of thousands of electrons in the making and the only thing clearly evident is that F&f and P&T can't play well togeather. The clear solution (IMHO) in the first instance would appear to be a two-way IBAN. If the actions of either editor is so egregious as alledged by the other, then the WP community will have one or both of them back here soon enough, to deal with separately. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    [[Coulomb (unit)|I think it's fair to say that Template:Tq is at least a slight underestimate]]. EEng 21:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a pity Pataliputra won't reciprocate with an apology of his own, but you can't force a heartfelt apology. This looks like a two-way IBAN where one party learns something and the other doesn't, but okay, I agree that's the least bad outcome. What do we do about M of Ghor though?—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
What to do with about M of Ghor? Underpinning conduct is a content dispute which is really outside the scope of this venue and best left to the cohort of editors that normally edit in this topic area and this article in particular - independent of the antagonists. This would imply a TBAN for the antagonists specific to M of Ghor. I might suggest that we treat the content added by the antagonists as if it were added by a banned editor, in which case, it would be reverted to a stable version status quo ante. This appears to be some time at the start of this year. The article might then be improved iteratively from that point. However, I would be mindful to make restrictions that would prevent a particular version being reinstated en mass rather than as an iterative process and consensus building. My thoughts. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I have been concerned by Packer&Tracker's approach to editing. As Talk:Siege of Lahore (1186) or my dissection of his section on religion of MoG attest to, the product of his editorial activities — whatever be the reason — tends to overlap with the Hindu Nationalist scholarship on history which has no subscribers in academia. This is not an one-off blip either. However I do think that he intends for the betterment of the encyclopedia, reasons within rational boundaries, and does not exhibit a recalcitrant attitude. Thus, I remain disinclined to support any sanction as of now.Template:PbHaving had part-productive part-acrimonious relationships with both F&F and Pat, I do not offer any comments on their feud except lodging my opposition to the enactment of a mutual/either-way IBan. Such a sanction will be unworkable given the extensive overlap between their editing interests. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, for the reasons ElC explains, this is attracting insufficient participation to reach a decision. Kick it upstairs to Arbcom? Seems overkill but it needs resolving and it appears the community can't do that.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    There might be room for something custom. I brainstorm some sort of restraint from editing on disputed topics that serves as a pseudo-iban while one or two of these content disputes goes to dispute resolution as test cases? That is of course if dispute resolution is on board. CMD (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Arbcom is an excellent idea. I have been saying for years that Patliputra has created vast islands of undue weight on Wikipedia by employing original research (copying and pasting text images, and figures, from PLOS type articles; cutting out portions of images on a large scale and using them in these articles, citing them to dubious sources (mostly old and obscure, with a token modern thrown in here and there); and quite often their edits have shown similarity with what appears in Hindu majoritarian scholarship. In so doing they have caused major damage to some vital Wikipedia articles. They need the kind of look that only Arbcom is capable of giving. I'm happy to have my behavior analyzed as well and be punished for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talkcontribs) 11:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Not a good option. You can use WP:ARE and cite diffs there about the recent violations. It will work better than ANI.
Personally, I don't think any sanctions are needed. All involved parties here should consider the concerns raised here and try getting along. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is not a good option? Everything else, RSN, NPOV noticeboard, have been tried. He is incorrigible, excelling at the gray-zone, flying-just-below-the-radar editing, and getting away until someone such as I notice it. Examine Brahmi script where I insisted on an NPOV lead and eventually had my way, editing it, but pulling teeth and getting blood out of a stone all the way. But look at the rest of the article and see what a monument it is to original research, all Patliputra's handiwork. Who has the time to fix it in the way I fixed the lead? I certainly don't. That page's main body and many others need to be reverted to the stable versions before Patliputra began to edit them several years ago. Incredible damage they have done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Queens of Mysore....

And here is a real-time example from just a few hours ago:
  • Patliputra found the picture File:Queens of Mysore, Thomas Hickey, 1805.jpg somewhere on the web. A historian has conjectured that it might be a turn-of-the-19th-century picture of the wives of the 12-year old ruler of Mysore state showing the evidence of their vaccination for smallpox. Patliputra then proceeded to spam it on the following pages:
  1. The FA Kingdom of Mysore (at the beginning of the section "Under British rule" which begins, "This system changed under the subsidiary alliance with the British, when tax payments were made ..." My revert. They've added it to:
  2. Krishnaraja Wadiyar III, where it is undue; I reverted it, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS
  3. Variolation. I reverted it.dif), asking that they take it to the talk page, and demonstrate that this is DUE in light of Arthur Boylston's J of Royal Society of Medicine article to which the text was cited before the image was added.
  4. Template:South Asia in 1525 CE which is a map of the "main South Asian polities in 1525." Mysore did not become a principality until 1610. (My revert,
  5. Lakshmi Ammani Devi, the conjectured Dowager (widow) queen in the middle of the painting—born in 1742, and therefore at least 50 years older than the supposedly 12-year-old girls on the left and right—wears the jewellery and the forehead mark of a married woman. My revert (diff)
  6. Vaccination, where it might be OK
  • So, this is the problem. They've pasted the image on six pages of which only one might be WP:DUE. If there weren't someone with my knowledge of modern Indian history watching, they would get away with it, and Wikipedia would look more and more like a solipsistic blog. When I use the expression "solipsistic blog" or something of that ilk of exasperated description, I get hauled to ANI for abusive language. This has happened three times before with Patliputra and once now with Packer&Tracker. When I revert, I am challenged, RfCs are begun, dubious sources are piled on, various Joe Shmos walk off the street and hold forth, many because they think I have an anti-India reputation, and at some point, I begin to wonder what am I doing here on Wikipedia.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
How will an interaction ban help? It will just allow Patliputra to get away with OR on a grander scale. Hundreds of WP pages are already infected with it. I'm going to bed now, but won't be surprised if all my reverts are in turn reverted when I wake up. Wikipedia has to decide. Is reliable and due content more important or compulsive politeness? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


Queens of Mysore. Thomas Hickey, 1805.
Queen of my sores

As anticipated, the litany of retaliatory and frivolous accusations by User:Fowler&fowler goes on and on.... This incredibly beautiful portrait of the Queens/Princesses of the Kingdom of Mysore was painted in 1805 by Thomas Hickey and recently rediscovered (BBC News). It is a remarkable testimony to the nobility of the Kingdom of Mysore in the early 19th century. It is also seemingly, and quite surprisingly, an advertisement for vaccination vs variolation in India, in a context of major smallpox epidemies (BBC News): the princess on the left has a large discoloration around the mouth and the nose due to variolation ("nasal insufflation" of smallpox residues), while the princess on the right only has a small scar on the hip, which she exposes by raising her saree, due to the recently introduced vaccination process (the benign innoculation of cowpox). This painting is extremely relevant to several areas of knowledge, and to several articles on Wikipedia: Vaccination, Variolation, Kingdom of Mysore, king (ruler) Krishnaraja Wadiyar III (who married the two princesses), and possibly Lakshmi Ammani Devi, who might be represented in the middle according to the BBC article. This is not "Spamming" or WP:UNDUE... As usual, Fowler&fowler resorts to his usual brusqueness (the "unconditional apology" above is obviously without effect [88]), by mass-deleting all but one of my contributions in respect to this painting: [89][90][91][92]. Visibly, Fowler&fowler constant incivility and personal attacks is not just an issue with his temper, choice of words, and turns of phrases: I am afraid it rather reflects a fundamental WP:Battleground mentality and disrespect for the contributions of others. Civil Talk Page discussions are the way to go, rather than mass deletions and accusatory misrepresentations in an unrelated ANI thread... Until Fowler&fowler understands that, useless conflicts with other editors will inevitably keep springing up. Only Administrators can send a strong message that collaborative and civil editing is the only way to go... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  • OK, in the continued absence of workable alternatives I think the least unhelpful outcome for this thread would be an escalation to Arbcom. I will do this. I propose to call the case History of India, as this seems to be a neutral title that encompasses most of the disputed articles, and I propose to name Packer, Fowler and Pataliputra as parties. Anyone who hasn't been to Arbcom before might want to familiarise themselves with Arbcom's strict word count limits.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@S Marshall: This is a fairly basic issue related to the incivility of one user User:Fowler&fowler (which he acknowledges). The rest is just content dispute, or made-up content dispute, which is easily resolved with Talk Page discussion. Do what you want, but I will not lose my time and the time of the community by participating to a needless Arbcom process. Administrators can easily deal with the issues presented here. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much @S Marshall:. I believe it is high time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, @पाटलिपुत्र:, if administrators can easily deal with the issues presented here, then we might reasonably ask: why have they not?—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@S Marshall: Administrator User:El C was planning to deal with this thread, but was somehow discouraged by Fowler&fowler's agressive posture ("in light of him inexplicably taking that action in the first place as a response to my rather standard and neutral advise (and seemingly the mentality that he's owed something from me), I'm gonna leave all that to others." [93]), but I suspect he might very well come back to bring closure to this thread, as could any of the thick-skinned administrators around. No need for another endless round of drama and misrepresentation... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
S Marshall I'm late to this party, but from my perspective at least part of the problem has been that AE has not been tried. Admin intervention is very difficult in a lengthy talk-page discussion, and this ANI discussion is almost impossible to follow. I am among those who have expressed concern at the unwillingness of users here to moderate their language (in one case) or to follow BRD and ONUS (in two others); but one cannot evaluate behavioral issues without a concise statement summarizing them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, either Arbcom or AE, let's move to one of those. @S Marshall: or @Vanamonde93: please come to some decision among yourselves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
My preference is for Arbcom. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I recommend against ARBCOM, both because that's where everyone who has every held a grudge against any of you will appear, and because procedurally, AE is a necessary precursor to ARBCOM. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, ARBCOM is unlikely to accept a case that hasn't previously tried the discretionary sanctions remedy of WP:ARBIPA. So, WP:AE is the right course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, so S Marshall or Vanamonde93 Please propose something at AE. Thank you Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
As I've said repeatedly, I don't mind being permanently banned from Wikipedia for employing intemperate language. But what Patliputra has done over the last five years, and other India-POV editors have, despite their disclaimers, has done incalculable harm to Wikipedia's content. They have hurt Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. If I am gone, my incivility goes. But if they are gone, their content remains. That is why I have not asked for any blocks for them, only examination and removal of their edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: The only way this will come to any sort of resolution is if you present evidence of any POV-pushing at AE. And when I say POV-pushing, I mean specifically one or more of: source mis-representation, cherry-picking poor sources, and original research in articles. Other sanctionable conduct includes ignoring behavioral guidelines, such as WP:ONUS. S Marshall and/or myself cannot provide that for you. I can't act as an admin in this instance, but I cannot parse thousands of edits and talk page histories; I can only discuss what I'm aware of. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you are saying that I need to initiate the AE, @Vanamonde93:? I guess I became confused by S Marshall's "kick it upstairs," thinking someone else was going to do it. Yes, of course, I understand that you cannot find the evidence. If that is the case, then do I need to wait until this thread has closed? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it needs escalating and, when I thought the escalation route would be Arbcom, I was offering to do the paperwork. I don't think I can start the AE?—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will initiate the AE myself once I know from @Vanamonde93: when I can do it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You can do it at any point; and S Marshall, you could do it too, if you were willing to look for and provide evidence of misconduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Od Since an AE discussion seems likely (to be clear, I think that's a good thing), some advice to all the likely participants to help us move toward some sort of resolution; concision is your friend, evidence of actual misconduct is needed, and your own credentials in the area are irrelevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  • RE: Template:Tq — you suspect wrong, Pataliputra. I meant what I said. In the previous ANI thread (earlier in the month), I advanced the following point. It being that for some time now, Fowler has been on a downward spiral as far as NPA and CIVIL lapses go. Now, some might excuse that as him being "baited," but that could only apply to a point, to a limit. And, as evident by his surprisingly harsh response (which, granted, he had partly retracted) to my rather tame advise (not instruction) to both original parties in this thread to try to be concise and to provide evidence, respectively — I understood that as him viewing my attempt to cushion his fall, not as, well, a cushion, but rather, as floor spikes or whatever. Thus, continuing with that analogy, as far as I'm concerned, he may now land where he may. I don't want anything to do with it anymore, simply because my help doesn't imply that I'd automatically side with him in all instances. Fairness has always been paramount to my ethos, regardless of anything, and I make no apologies when it comes to that.
Furthermore, my help would have also necessitated that the information be made somewhat digestible, in that it would need to be refined — a point which Fowler flat out and adamantly rejected. So, even if I were willing to offer my assistance in this matter (which again, is no longer on the table), there's no way I'm devoting countless, countless hours to reviewing such unrefined info from lengthy talk pages, or for that matter, this ANI thread itself. A thread which has become so inordinately lengthy at this point, it's now virtually impenetrable to outside reviewers (the very thing I cautioned against multiple times in both threads). I doubt a single uninvolved person has read through this entire ANI thread and followed up on its links and diffs.
Yet, on it goes. But, again, when I try to be upfront by explaining that it's an unrealistic expectation, I get scorn for not coddling this plain truth. As I already noted, it's a straight-up no good deed scenario. So, sure, try WP:AE, and we'll see if the 500-word limit can be observed (I have my doubts). Or, try WP:RFAR, which also has a 500-word limit. As I had already noted multiple times, it's really all the same to me at this point, in the sense that I won't be providing any further assistance. Hopefully, the above details my position more clearly. I wish all parties success in seeing these various disputes resolved amicably, truly. And while that seems rather unlikely atm, I'd very much wish to be proven wrong on that account. El_C 19:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The TLDR (or a TLDR): this thread has over 20 sub/sections and takes up about a third of this noticeboard. That sort of impenetrable excess will not be permitted at WP:AE or WP:RFAR. El_C 01:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It was not a harsh response El_C. It was a despondent response. I am sorry you feel hurt, but it had nothing to do with you, only with the relentless ANI threads, the tiresome knee-jerk RfCs, the long talk page threads that go nowhere, the relentless lying on South Asia, taking their toll, this one being the last straw. It was a deeply despondent response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I should have said lying on India-related topics. The Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis POV promoters don't lie as much. They prefer to be foolish and get blocked. But as India-POV pushers can't leave any of the South Asia topics alone, I have decided to move away from most South Asia topics. That was mostly the content of my announcement which I have since retracted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, will some admin close this thread? If it is felt that a block is needed, please block me for incivility for as long as you want, two months, six months, a year, or permanently. I have no illusions left about Wikipedia. The kinds that I had in October 2006 when I arrived here that it was going to replace Britannica are only worth a bitter laugh. The conversations that I have from time to time with retired University of Chicago professors who were involved in the last great revision of Britannica, especially South Asia, shows the yawning gap between those faltering, aged, academics and the best of what we have in Wikipedia. If and when I am blocked, I will not for a minute miss Wikipedia. I am active here out of a sense of charity (in the best meaning of the term, not in a sneering paternalistic way). I will simply do more of the other things I really like doing. I'm as clear as that. But I will not scratch my former uncivil remarks, and although I apologize, and will make a good-faith attempt to be civil, I cannot guarantee that I will be invariantly civil in the face of relentless coldly polite POV promotion, the kind that Wikipedia is unable or unwilling to stop. Anyway, again, some admin please close this thread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
PS I thank S. Marshall and CMD for some remarks of insight and sympathy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: "The Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis POV promoters don't lie as much" [94]... So South Asian editors with a point-of-view different from yours are liars, but to various degrees depending on their ethnicity? How isn't this deeply xenophobic, racist and offensive to other contributors (besides being totally derogatory to Indians)? I know quite a few editors who were blocked for much less... Civility is not an option or a decorative attribute, it is at the core of collaborative editing: respect other users, do not insult them, nor their ethnicity, nor their religion. Administrators: Fowler&fowler is a valuable contributor, but this is the exactly kind of **** we have to deal with everyday when encountering him, and he keeps not understanding: can you please (User:El_C?) send a clear message that this is not acceptable behaviour? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
That comment isn't very civil, but racist it is not. F&F is making no generalization about South Asian editors, but about South Asian nationalist pov-pushers. Are you seriously arguing that we don't have an epidemic of nationalist POV-pushing from every south Asian country? You do realize that we have ARBIPA DS for exactly this reason? Your argument is based on a straw man, and is not remotely conducive to collaboration either. Collaboration also requires engaging in good faith with the substance of what another editor is saying, rather than taking every opportunity to take offense. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
RE: Template:Tq — Fowler&fowler, at least by withdrawing, I no longer will be made a target for your outbursts, undeservedly. My feelings take comfort in that. See ya. El_C 15:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Abot Template:Hab

Edit warring has been going on over the Rita Ora discography article for a long time. User:Helptottt, User:Jakubik.v and a newly created account (User:Swedishbrittisk), by possibly one of them with the clear purpose of edit-warring, are continually removing sourced content, without any plausible reasoning: [95][96][97][98][99][100] Despite various warnings given on their talkpages and attempts to find a solution on the talkpage, they are unable to understand this and unfortunately, they do not seem to like to communicate and help improve the article instead. Their behaviour show that they are intending to continue reverting repeatedly. User:Swedishbrittisk further calls to "keep reverting" me if I "keep on doing these senseless edits" [101]. However, they're endangering the article, which is currently being reviewed to pass the featured list nomination. Thanks in advance. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Listen, I just want to follow Wikipedia's rules, and believe me that I’m just using one account, none of these two is me, but think whatever you want to think. Swedishbrittisk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This is serious accusation. I'm not pathetic, I don't need to hide behind some "other" profile. I only have one profile here and I require you not to accuse me of such of thing. Thank you. Jakubik.v (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The only user who is edit warring is yourself, and several editors pointed out the unnecessary changes with which you have damaged the article. Insinuating that I created a new account to revert your edits is insane. The article, before you started editing it, was already in a very good state, needing minimal changes. Like Black Kite highlighted, it's you who needs to explain all the wild changes you made to the article. You are behaving like you own the article, and use threatening and accusatory language against editors. How is this behavior not against the rules?! Helptottt (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Selling illegal drugs. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thomasthimoté (talk · contribs) - after being asked to look into this user's contribs by, I left Thomasthimoté a message regarding the issue.

His response? To say "fuck you asshole" and "shut up".

*calmly delivers Heimlich manoeuvre*

All ordeals are temporary. (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The ordeal was over. (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)



I find this inappropriate bc this is a bad influence on kids thank you (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wikipedia user

It's generic run of the mill pre-teen edge-lord vandalism.

he gone

I need a trout after that. I deserve it.

Must you always be a pain in the 'bleep', at least once a year?

The only thing I can think of is to sacrifice 666 articles at AfD to the dark lord of deletionism in exchange for the ability to dual cast Confusion and Unholy Blight.

a man’s descent into insanity


I am a fiscal conservative who is very socially moderate. I believe that centrism is a force for good and is the only way for society to make any changes. I believe the capitalism is one of the best inventions of all time. It allows anyone of any background to become successful, which I believe to be very important.

no point in having political views when everything is decided by the elite


there's no way to distinguish a good-faith edit with three combined instances of "slut" and "bitch" in it from a bad-faith one. […] Okay, despite saying that,

do it ten times to win a prize (allow four days for delivery),

fuck outta here

I don't give a damn about your sanctions, clown.

there is an article I believe is a hoax (Animaniacs)!

Laments being blocked on Wikipedia, yet continues the same destructive behavior? While drunk? (what!) Classic lack of insight. Wikipedia is not therapy-- or AA.

Expecting almond delivery promptly.

And don't regulate the templars either.

I don't even know what the hell I'm reading.

<!-- If you're about to add a "spoiler alert" or delete this section, you should be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does NOT use spoiler warnings. The fact that this section is titled "Identity of the murderer" is a warning to the reader. See [[WP:SPOILER]] for more information on the Wikipedia guideline regarding this, and the [[Talk:The_Mousetrap/FAQ]] (Frequently Asked Questions) at the talk page for a detailed rationale. -->

WARNING: If you read this, do not see who murdered Mrs. Maureen Lyon and Mrs. Boyle! Read at your own risk!


Check out my Twitter page for my real feelings about this content dispute. Oh, no, I shut down my rarely used Twitter page a month or so ago. Oh, well.

Brown University obtained the +1-401-867 prefix in 1999, assigning 867-5309 to a student dormitory room which was promptly inundated with nuisance calls.

Uhh I found out I could get a signature made here? If you can please do InfernaIBaze (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@InfernaIBaze: Hello Infernal! I can definitely make a signature for you. What do you want it to look like? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, good question. Maybe a black and red or a little techy blue would be nice, Thanks. InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Either one works InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@InfernaIBaze: Alright. Any specific shape or do you want it similar to mine? Do you want a gradient of red to techy blue (if I can figure that out which will probably just be stealing someone else's signature with a gradient to reference). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Whatever you think is best works InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@InfernaIBaze: I'm not really all that creative so I have a hard time coming up with stuff on the fly. What specific shape do you want it or do you want it to look similar to mine? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Similar to yours works (I’m not creative either) InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@InfernaIBaze: Hey! So in regards to the link to your talk, is there anything you want underneath the link or is it fine as is? If so would you like the parentheses removed and any custom formatting around the link? Do note that I am limited to 255 characters total so it has to fit within that limit. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Nope it’s fine like this. Sorry I haven’t been able to reply. InfernaIBaze (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Nah it's alright. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, I’m probably gonna sound really dumb staying this but when will the signature be made? (Assuming it’s not already made) InfernaIBaze (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
And another thing (unrelated to the signature) is that discord user box outline how did you get it? InfernaIBaze (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Answer to your first question: Should be done sometime today assuming I'm not lazy. Answer to your second question: It's a template. Specifically User:Levi_OP/Discord Profile. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, I’ll be looking forward to the signature! InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Lemme know when it’s done InfernaIBaze (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Also @Blaze Wolf how do you find these cool templates? It’s not like you just found the template in the template menu or anything InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Also,(again) Japanese test for you. こんにちは、ぼくのほんとのなまえは、のあです(I’m half Japanese, don’t question the horrendous grammar) InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:OdIn response to the Japanese test, all I can understand is the first part which is "Konnichiha" or "hello. Other than that I have no clue what the rest says. I'm still at a very basic level lol. Also, the way I found the cool template on my talk page was that I think I remember seeing it on someone else's userpage before it was a template and the guy (who I think is now inactive) made it into a template since I wanted it on my userpage as well. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay… I was hoping for some magic website that gave you the greatest templates or whatever. No big deal tho.(this is a joke) The full translation is, Hello, my name is Noah. Simple InfernaIBaze (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This conversation is veering really far from signature. InfernaIBaze (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I am very sorry that I have to be like this. If you feel annoyed( and I know you do) you can stop helping me at any time. InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
And even after that apology I feel intreged to ask. How Are you learning Japanese. InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I spelt that wrong I just know it. InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@InfernaIBaze: It's spelled intrigued and I'm learning it via multiple different ways. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
That’s cool! Good luck. InfernaIBaze (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh my god I just looked in your signature sandbox by accident (I was trying to find out if my username had 2 is or not and saw it so I had to, I’m sorry) And it looks so cool! Thanks a lot for the help in making it. InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hypocritical "warning" is noted and appropriately acted on.

my 8 year old son has better English skills than you.

You're extremely annoying. You should win an Oscar for that.

Please proceed with the pro forma IP range block, scumbags.

I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired

Good block. Very good.


There's someone who edited the Annoying Orange Wikipedia page claiming that Orange "likes cocaine"

this is so terrible i want to vomit

Despite everything you are likely to have ever heard about furries, many are quite normal people. I think.

I've  'ed the main account.

you speak to me with some god dam respect you keyboard worrier

ANI is a cesspit at the best of times, and ArbCom is so broken that it's beyond a joke

You are spiteful and a wikipedia nazi

I will be forced to create The Anti-Praxidicae Justice League of Wikimedia.

Can you please supply your full name and country of residence. [editor’s note: the talk page from this section is worth a read.]

A shower of stupid dumbass American fucking wankers, every last childish one you lazy ugly fat useless bastards. Nazi fuckers. Burn in hell.

Let's make it red. And bold. And in a 48-point blackletter font. And blink. Template:Hat <blink> do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. </blink> Template:Hab

This is what I would at like if I were a vandal "you all suck die die die die die"

Oh, I do apologise, what an important distinction you raise. I'm sure you go around telling people they only appear like pedophilia apologists all the time and they think you're just wonderful.

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh joy, an ANI thread with Eric and Carol. I'll grab some popcorn and hide working on getting The Who to FA status and related album articles to GA. Somebody let me know when it's over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's rubbish like this that really makes me wonder what the Hell this project is about, and whether I want to be associated with it. I'd thought that we were trying to build an encyclopedia, but apparently we're trying to create some kind of gender equality Utopia. I've only got one thing to say about that, which is fuck it, and fuck Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Making racists mad on Wikipedia since 2016.


...think about it

The Barnstar of Good Humor

Your edits to the 2016 Brussels bombings talk page are very much appreciated.

I was wondering when this would devolve into subtle accusations of racism against fellow editors.

believe me, there's a lot of people there who don't need me.

My reasons are beyond yourt feeble mortal comprehensions.,


I’m an new user! You don’t have the right to delete my userpage! I ask you to please restore this page! It’s an userpage, not an Wikipedia article! Lobby And TheoTheoDerich (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lobby And TheoTheoDerich! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to create an account an join us! I understand that you're new here, but you need to understand that we have policies and guidelines that I must not only follow (being an admin doesn't exempt me from being required to follow all of the rules as well), but enforce as well. The reason I deleted your user page was because it consisted of advertising and promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion, and Wikipedia's user page guidelines here state that advertising and promotion is not allowed on your user page. Your user page was deleted because it met the criteria in policy allowing me to do so.
I don't want the deletion to result in you feeling disheartened or upset, but on the other aspect - you need to understand that this website is about building an encyclopedia; it's not about advertising the game you want people to download. If the deletion makes you that upset, you should ask yourself if you are here for the right reasons. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia and make Wikipedia a better place for anyone to read and enjoy? You stated that you are brand new here, but then go on to say that I don't have the right to delete your user page. Your last sentence also (incorrectly) implies that you believe that I'm only allowed to delete articles, and not user pages. For someone who understands that they're brand new to Wikipedia (you stated this above), you're making (very incorrect) assumptions despite acknowledging that you're new and that you're not familiar with all of our policies.
My advice to you is that that you withhold any assumptions that you might find yourself wanting to make, and that you take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. We have an extensive getting started page, as well as an interactive new user tutorial; both will be very beneficial for you, and I highly recommend reading through and completing them. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any assistance - I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
You… Stay away! You’re trying to harm me! You deleted my userpage as an new user, you musted man! Stay away from me! Lobby And TheoTheoDerich (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Template:YO Meh. Oshwah is a great guy and like ten times nicer than I. I think you are being unduly harsh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Stay away, I said. I am issuing my final warning, stay away. —Lobby And TheoTheoDerich (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be making a threat, to another editor. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Template:Ec Lobby And TheoTheoDerich - Given your response above, it's becoming clear to me that you just aren't willing to learn and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines no matter how clear and easy I make doing so for you. I hope that I'm reading you incorrectly and that you prove me wrong, and that you become a constructive editor and that you contribute positively to the project. All I'll say to you is that the mindset and attitude that you demonstrated above will just lead you to being shown the exit door (not by me, but by another administrator) should you continue editing with that mindset. Regardless, I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, what have you been smoking?

Looks stupid, don't it?

MS.NIMO Is Requesting Adminship Please 🙏 and Thank you



How are you BoulevardBowl27 bots mots BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

i want to be steward


I want to be steward BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)



how are you BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)




unhelpful feedback on our introduction

How can we make it better?

By correcting lies written by wikipedia

How did you come across the tutorial series?
  • it was by mistake but it really helped me
How long did you spend looking through it, and which parts did you read?
  • 20mins and all of it
Did the tutorial coping to learn about?
  • Yes
Was it easy to understand?
  • very much
Did it help make you feel more confident editing?
  • vert much
How can we make it better?
  • mackung it shorter
Any other comment

can you help by giving us a way we can massage people or even cintactpeople a

[by the way, the section title was "the age of fish"]

How did you come across the tutorial series?
  • As a very good student and "obedient" talented "learner" at school I could only say that my great teacher in Mathematics forwarded me to the great alpha phi beta magna wikipedia students and contributors. Oh I love to study "hard"!
How long did you spend looking through it, and which parts did you read?

I spend 6 to 7 hours a day on wikipedia feeds 3 hours after school and 3 hours after evening studies like from 11 pm to 2 am and wake up at 5:30 am in the morning for school.

Did the tutorial cover the topics you were hoping to learn about?

Oh yes i loved it. It did covered the topics I was hoping to learn about it. I am a great "learner". Especially on "multiple" topics...

Was it easy to understand?

Yes it was very easy to understand because I am the best student of my class and even in my school. My scientific know-how ( i am a great "learner") enables me to understand really "fast".

Did it help make you feel more confident editing?

I am a "beginner" and wish to progress "fast" in --editing- mathematical and advanced geometry and statistics articles

How can we make it better?

Please "provide" me with great "tools" for editing- I am craving to "contribute" to your "Foundation" for all editors around the world

Any other comments?
  • thanks to wikipedia for " providing me" great "ressources" and "tools" for my advanced knowledges in Advanced Mathematics and Spatial Geometry and Physics of Laws and Orders
Did the tutorial cover the topics you were hoping to learn about?

T;Was it easy to t?t

How did you come across the tutorial series?
  • Link from another page
How long did you spend looking through it, and which parts did you read?
  • 2-3 minutes
Did the tutorial cover the topics you were hoping to learn about?
  • Yes/No
Was it easy to understand?
  • Not in the context that it was conveying opinions rather than ONLY facts
Did it help make you feel more confident editing?
  • n/a
How can we make it better?
  • Remove opinions1
Any other comments?
  • I will no longer be viewing Wikipedia as a knowledge source, rather a leftist propaganda propagator


Any other comments?

republicans did this

How did you come across the tutorial series?
  • Wikipedia Administrator Lady Liz ( has approved my request and has sent a valuable list of internal Wikipedia pages for the training of new editors. One of the pages of that list is the 'Introduction' page.
How long did you spend looking through it, and which parts did you read?
  • I have chosen the option of showing all sections of the Introduction as a single page, then I have leisurely read the full introduction (every section), in the course of two days, interspersed with attending to other tasks.
Did the tutorial cover the topics you were hoping to learn about?
  • Undoubtedly yes, it is well written and complete as an introduction, with relevant internal links to more detailed information.
Was it easy to understand?
  • Certainly, the language is clear and the distribution logical. It hardly needs any improvement, in my view.
Did it help make you feel more confident editing?
  • I have already edited some other wikis, whether sister projects of the Wikimedia Foundation such as Wikivoyage, or non-Wikimedia wikis such as Wikitravel, Metapedia, Fascipedia and Dixiepedia (this one closed in late 2009, the others are active as of March 2023).
How can we make it better?
  • It is already excellent as it is now. Some other editors may have suggestions, but at this point I have none.
Any other comments?
  • Yes, regarding style. I am a polyglot fluent in various languages, but when I write in English I normally use traditional British Standard, except in specific contexts (such as scientific or technical information) in which I use an accepted international standard. I hope that my linguistic norms shall not conflict with those of Wikipedia or with the usage of other contributors.

Thanks for the fine work that You are doing, Gentlemen, and go ahead with it. Receive a Strong Confederate Salute.

How did you come across the tutorial series🕌
How long did you spend looking through it, and which parts did you read🕌
Did the tutorial cover the topics you were hoping to learn about🕌
Was it easy to understand🕌
Did it help make you feel more confident editing?
How can we make it better🕌
Any other commentsyr
  • 🕌




what the hell was that?

Before the case went to court, there was a pre-trial hearing regarding points of law. Two points raised were; "Did the United States need to prove intent to violate the Gold Reserve Act to gain a warrant for seizure?", and "did the United States need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt?". On both points, the judge ruled that intent was irrelevant in terms of getting a warrant, and because this was a civil case and not a criminal one, the government only needed to show a preponderance of evidence. The rooster was then held in a federal bank vault until the case was heard as the judge refused to grant bail to it.

Vandalism, Racism, Legal Threats, and Possible Sock Puppetry: A Tale of a Novice Wikipedian In Over Her Head

In 2020, the U.S. Army Esports Twitter account tweeted "uwu" in reply to a tweet by Discord, which was met by significant backlash from Twitter users. This event culminated in a trend of attempting to get banned from the U.S. Army Esports Discord server as quickly as possible, with a common technique being to link to Template:Srlink.

User comments

JKJK'�«\Ö��W��E?��ªk�Ù��U�#�ÜÁ���o�o¾��Ós�«£�Ðrÿÿ…éÿÿ Áÿÿ�E�ÏùÿÿÅ�ÝEÿÿ^µ�’™ �ˆ��"��"��"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�����"��"��ˆ�’™ �"��"��"��"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w��"��"��"��"�’™ �"��"��"w��"w���"w��"w�"w��"��"�"D��"��"��"��"w��"w�"w��"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w��"��"��"����"w���"w�"w�"w�"D��"�"w�"w��"��"��"w��"w�"w�"w��"w�"w�"w���"�"w�"w� ���"��"������"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w����"��"��"���"��"�‘��"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w����"��"��"��"��"�‘���"�"w�!"�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w�"w��"��"��"��"��"��"�‘��!"�"w�!"�"w�"w�"w�!"�!"�"w��"��"��"��"��"��"��"��"�!"�!"�"w�"w�!"�!"�!"�"w�"w��"��"��"��"��"��"��"�!"�!"�!"�"w�!"�!"�!"�!"�"w��"��"��"��"����"��"��"��"�!"�"w�!"�!"�!"�!"�!"��"����"��"��"����"��"��"��"�"w�!"�!"�!"�!"��"��"�‘��������‘��‘��‘���"��"�‘��‘��‘��‘��‘��!"��"�€™ �����"��"�‘�������"��"��"��"�‘��‘��‘��Þ¡�þÿ�w�^Ç�ðÿdm�(Ê��£‘�Ê{��Z™��—�ÿÿ�n�…w��vŸ�ÎÁ�áÿÖn�¦Á�áÿîn�¦Á�áÿîn�¦Á�áÿîn�¦Á�áÿîn�8FAFA�ˆ”�0�iÒFAFAeÝ/.®�Íe�3~ÿ/ª$�®kîW‡ß-ôB�½qѤpß-…§��wWñoý)Ϻ�(i´¨‚ý)Ϻ�(FAFAÿ Z _×�f�G�Ó�qT�‚��F�l�d(�¹���3�¶Ph�xn�iÿ�FAFA®®®®F����I�R���»��ª�m �xQ'J�'���U����òÿÿÿ(��Â�������ä{têÿÿÿ�äÿÿÿ|��� ��Œ R�R �����õ�u��P02011165F16QLGB00SB51FFEFDDFA4

(non-admin) I don't see that this rises to the point where it needs administrator intervention. How about both of you just agree to stop interacting with each other, stop talking about each other, avoid editing the same pages, and go find something more productive to do? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

An iban is grossly out of proportion compared to whatever fault I had. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like a fuckin' awesome recommendation. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Tq I don't suppose you have the power to make this happen in my RL. :-) One more wish: although it's a somewhat messy block log based on the conversation you've been having with yourself, perhaps you should clarify the log by CU-blocking Benutzer:Ijumdiya would make it easier for anyone looking at the log later. Thanks for your hard work.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23! God, if only I could grant wishes in real life... :-) And yes, good call - I have no problem putting that block back onto the account. Sigh... yeah, I didn't exactly leave that account's block log in clean and perfect order... :-/
I blocked this user on accident while using the SPI script to block the other sock users I found (I simply forgot to untick the "block" checkbox next to that account in the list). After catching the mistake, I unblocked the account and stated my reason in that summary. Sigh..... Then, a few moments later, I realized that I forgot that the account was previously indefinitely blocked, and that I had just stupidly unblocked them to fix the first mistake instead of changing it back. Hence, my other other block change. Yeah, good times... *Oshwah rolls his eyes at himself*
Anyways,   Done. I've restored the CU block back due to both the technical and behavioral evidence, and the discussion at the SPI. Thanks for pointing that out and for letting me know. If you need anything else from me, please don't be a stranger. You know where to find me! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone needs a vacation. EEng 00:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
EEng - HA! HAHAHA! Ha... haha..... *starts sobbing*.... :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an unpolitical question.

I've got some things to sort out this morning (UK time), along with some c-word related stuff (cricket, of course)

To the one who keeps silencing the truth, you will answer for it; it will not be forgotten.

Unblock me or ill make new account. Koqkpa (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You have 26 hours Koqkpa (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

THERE! Now the horse has no legs!!!

6. An internet troll is defined as an entity that passive-aggressively incites as many internet users to disagree and squabble as possible by putting controversial subjects and statements up for argument and debate, with very little effort on its own part or concern for the bitter disputes it leaves in its path.

7. On any subjects of true importance, far more text, typing, effort, blood, sweat and tears are spent bitterly arguing and endlessly debating on the talk pages of articles rather than contributing to the articles themselves.

8. Therefore, Wikipedia could in itself, by definition, be described as the world's largest internet troll.

No really, here's a gun. Just do it.

In this day and age, that could probably somehow be misconstrued as an attack on somebody's preferred pronoun.


Funny that I also came here to write about the Tea house, but I guess I'll have to change the section header a bit. Anyway... Jéské, you obviously have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia, and also of your specialty topics. And it's great that you volunteer at the Tea house. But, (Aha! I bet you knew there was a but coming...) your responses, although accurate as far as they go, sometimes have a preachy or impatient tone. (Please accept this attempt at constructive criticism, from someone who can be preachy and impatient Template:Wink. ) I found this response to the entry Template:Slink accurate, but harsh. Maybe just go a little easier on them; they're often newbies and might consider becoming an editor and writing about something else. Or maybe they won't, but one never knows, and a harsh first experience at Wikipedia probably won't seem very encouraging. Other than that, I really enjoy your comments at various Talk forums and Rfc's. Keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that a person who views Wikipedia as an ersatz Facebook or as a billboard has no interest in editing elsewhere unless you make it crystal clear, with no ambiguity, that they have no idea what they're doing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The next time you post a diatribe like that at the Teahouse, I will pageblock you indefinitely from the Teahouse. Your conduct is unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Have it your way. I will not be blamed for a repeat of The North Face incident. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: on what grounds ? Nick (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Nick, ranting and raving like that is completely incompatible with Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations and way out of line at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
How much of it did you actually read, Cullen? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I read every word of your inappropriate diatribe and I read every word of the behavioral expectations for editors who answer questions at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Then in what way, policy-wise, is any of it wrong? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:OdTemplate:Tpq You were neither polite nor patient. You were antagonistic and brought up many things that had nothing to do with the original question. You were blowing off steam. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? A post that betrays a complete and total misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates from a user who has a painfully obvious conflict-of-interest doesn't require a responce that explains why they are mistaken with links to policy to back it up? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Is "ranting and raving" mentioned anywhere in the blocking policy, out of curiosity, or is there a specific section that allows you to block anybody you think isn't "being polite and patient with all editors who visit the Teahouse" ? I'm also rather intrigued, do you think threatening to block a long-term editor and effectively forcing them away from aiding at the Teahouse is conducive to the long term viability of the Teahouse ? Your threat reads like you're running the Teahouse as some sort of private fiefdom, demanding people do things a specific way, and as we know from how the Teahouse came into being, Wikipedia has never accepted these private little fiefdoms. Nick (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Nick, I am surprised that you are defending Jéské Couriano's disruptive editing at the Teahouse. I have warned the editor about this previously. All I am asking is that the excessively hostile comments stop. If it continues and I pageblock, then the matter can go to ANI and the community can decide which of us is editing on a disruptive fashion. I am confident about the outcome of any such discussion. Esperanza ended several years before the Teahouse started and there is zero connection. As for your fiefdom accusation, I consider your comment to be without merit. Cullen328 (talk)
Cullen, you got on my case for being a dumbass above. (And yes, you are correct but assumed malice rather than ignorance.) I don't trust you to not make a federal case out of anything I say from this point forward. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
If you simply follow the Teahouse behavioral expectations and provide accurate answers, then I will have no problem with your contributions in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not going to be anything but blunt as a truncheon with editors who have a conflict of interest. I've had kinder wording be exploited for loopholes; I would rather be unambiguous and clear than mealy-mouthed and gullible-sounding. And besides, I could be the sweetest person in the world and I have a feeling you'd still come after me because I used one too many "the"s. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the next time that you are "as blunt as a truncheon" in the same or similar fashion at the Teahouse, I will pageblock you for disruptive editing, and we will see where it goes from there. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Now get the fuck off my talk page and stay there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. Set up a triumvirate of MastCell, Bishonen, and Moni3. (Note that none of them will want to do this, and you will likely have to force them at gunpoint; that's part of the reason they'd be good choices.)
  2. Anything all three of them agree on is policy. Anything two of the three agree on is a guideline. Everything else is solved by rock, paper, scissors.
  3. Be ready to clone them as they inevitably burn out and quit, so we don't go too long without all three. Because offhand I can't think of any other good potential replacement triumviri; the rest of us appear to be either fools or lunatics.

Plan B


No offense to the three people above, but an alternate solution would be to just have User:Moonriddengirl decide everything by fiat. She appears to be immune from the desire to be retired or semi-retired that has infected the current triumvirate. At the very least, if Moni3 really has gone for good, then MRG should take her place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


  1. As proposer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. duh. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. Without reservation. Who's Moni? --Famously Sharp (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. Who's Moni? Who's Moni? Who's Moni? Did you really say that? Have some boobies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  5. As a member of the 2009 Committee to Draft MastCell for the Arbitration Committee. Or was it 2008?--Tznkai (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  6. With the proviso that I can act as ex-officio consultant in return for strawberries? Pesky (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  7. Simply brilliant. ComplexParadigm (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


  1. With indignation. Improved Bishonen | talk 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC).
    As you can see from the front page, I anticipated this response. When the time comes to move this forward, I am optimistic that my enforcer and his associates will be able to change your mind with a minimum of "fuss". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    How many kneecappings count as "fuss" anyway? NW (Talk) 01:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Nothing: Note the complete absence of everything.

I've had more constructive discussion with my wall than with some of them.

Please, I really wanna edit Wikipedia again, I told you it's the admin fault, he literally block me from editing instead of the the person. CoolChib124 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to be very, very, very clear here. So listen. It is your fault. Nobody else's. Your fault. Yours. You are to blame. You and you alone. If you read WP:GAB and believed it was appropriate to blame others, this is clear evidence that you need to remain blocked. I will not respond further. --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
You freaking bastard, why did even Wikimedia Studios hired you as admin, you deserve to get fired with User:Black Kite CoolChib124 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I may be wrong, of course, but I'm never wrong

this is patently fucking ridiculous and unencyclopedic.

lmao. You people are beyond saving and a case in point in why people should not receive unchecked power. Selectively applying policies, not accepting criticism, conversing in bad faith, creating a toxic environment by mocking other editors and wanting them to placate to whatever you deem correct — all under the guise of "protecting the project"; you are not protecting any project, you are protecting your ego while destroying Wikipedia. Good luck & keep it up. CarpathianAlien (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It might be nice to have unchecked powers but we don’t. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid if there is any toxicity in the environment, you are the source. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I really could care less you dumb fucking retard. Mschlosser90 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Dangit Levivich is a human (Homo sapiens) on Earth, first assembled and activated in the late 20th century. Despite an estimated clock rate under 0.0016 Hz and a 2-bit cache, Levivich continues to function,Template:Fakecn although both hardware and software are steadily degrading into obsolescence. Levivich regularly falls unconscious while on the dark side of the Earth, waking again after one-quarter to one-third of the planet's rotation. It is estimated that 99.999998% of humans are completely unaware of Levivich's existence, a figure that is expected to steadily rise.

NFOOTBALL was part of NSPORT, smartarse.

You won't provide the links but will post the slur for all to see on a page with 8500+ watchers?

The movement claims that all birds in the United States were exterminated by the federal government between 1959 and 1971 and replaced by lookalike drones used by the government to spy on citizens; the specifics of these theories are not always consistent, not unlike actual conspiracy theories.


Actual drone aircraft made from taxidermied birds, similar to those alleged by the theory, were constructed by a New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology team in 2023.

from now and on you are officially ignored

Keynesian economics has nothing to do with science. (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Economics is a social science. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That's just a play on words. you can call it a "social science" but it has nothing to do with "scientists". Lot's of people have professors that they call "doctors", but you would never go to your professor to get healed. Similarly, you may call economics a "social science", but you would never go to scientists to figure out whether or not its a good idea. The people you ask are economists. All economists in their right minds oppose communism and Keynsian economics. (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You are either trolling or seriously out of your depth. Either way, this "issue" is resolved. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Forensic Files are the result of years of homicidal proclivities combined with the experience of years.

61% of your pre-block edits related to LGBT matters. Your very first edit was to downplay the acceptance of it in the United States and a full dozen were to argue or defend edits arguing that homosexuality is morally equivalent to Nazism and a greater threat to America than Covid-19, fascism, police brutality, systemic racism, political and financial corruption, the upcoming housing market crash... Honestly, if you're more scared of homosexuality than Covid-19 or fascism, you don't need to be editing history articles, either.

I think we are engaging in the Wikipedia equivalent of sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion.


You’re talking about sending Capone to prison like it’s a bad thing.

I just want to say that I am glad that I got to know you for at least some of my time on here. I wish you the best in life, and I hope you find happiness in whatever you do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ooooh, I'm never happy in life! Thanks Scorps. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You better not poke your nose into things you don't have any knowledge, Mr Pork.

Nathan Larson may refer to:

  • Thanks for the global lock. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    I see I've been replaced :'( -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Atop There is public information about rob schneider that is inaccurate and when I tried to correct it, I was told the editing function is locked to prevent misuse. The standing of knowingly incorrect information for public print is actually misuse. It's actually illegal, and I actually recommend you knock it off before I actually find out who you are and Sue you until you can't actually feed your kids. Stop ruining our country and God Bless America. 🇺🇸

Specifically rob Schneider is a republican that you have listed as an independent. He went on a talkshow and clarified that he is a republican and would care to be recognized as such, in light of the current debacle in the Democratic party.

Why a Comic Legend Chose His Country over Career/Rob Schneider/the Glenn Beck Podcast Episode 152/ YouTube/ August 27, 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80A0:500:2CD:F0B7:C07C:BDE0:73F1 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If someone has reverted an edit of yours (which by the way, your contrib history has no history of), you must take it to the article talk page, not here. You have not provided any diffs or other evidence to help us help you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I have blocked the OP for a week for making legal threats. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


Just looking at it casually, the article was saved as no consensus so no damage was done by the closure. Damage is when an AfD is closed and the article is permanently destroyed. Trackinfo (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Association of Stroopwafel Addicts (ASA). This is an association for people who have tasted a stroopwafel at least *once* and like it very, very, very much. There is no obligation to be Dutch. Documentation on the history of the Stroopwafel in Wikimedia can be found on the official ASA posters. You are welcome to print the poster yourself and hang it up in all appropriate places. You may add yourself if you have tasted the taste of heaven, the stroopwafel. Please remember that only DUTCH STROOPWAFELS count!






the deep, dark, depths of the old wikipedia


[editor's note:

some background is necessary here.

esperanza was a project dedicated to fostering a friendly environment on wikipedia, and to strengthen the wikipedia community.

one of the initiatives that esperanza set out was the "coffee lounge", a place for casual chatter. this would certainly be frowned upon today.

in fact, the entire enterprise was indeed frowned upon already. on the 2nd of january, 2007, esperanza was dismantled, owing to the burocracy of the project, and various other issues.

it's a sad story, isn't it?

until you read the coffee lounge.]

Has anyone seen SaturnYoshi around lately? ||||||||||||||||||||D•a•r•k•nes•s•L•o•r•di•a•n•••C••• 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)||||||||||||||||||||

He edited The Ouija Code. Good for him! --Monkey 13!!! 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you look for him? Do you miss him? Do you have a desire for him?--Ed Trick? or Treat? 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That's creepy... Where is everyone?--SUIT42 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No one cares when I go away, it's all like: return my DVD or I'll take legal action ect. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 06:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You're scaring me, Ed. I'm STRAIGHT, for the last time. D•a•r•k•nes•s•L•o•r•di•a•n•••C••• 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does this keep happening?! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Awwwww... How sweet that I have friends who care. Sorry I haven't been on as much. I've been working with no days off for like two weeks now. I'll try to be on more, but my job is wearing me out. Oh, and Ed, stop thinking impure thoughts. Even if I am desireable... -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 08:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep happening?! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does what keep happening? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 17:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What? Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Wha-za-wha?--SUIT42 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem "confused", Defrag. It'll be okay... -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Wh-za-wha-za-whaaaaaaa!? This is getting weird...--SUIT42 02:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am so cold and lonely. Culverin? Talk 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ever since I came across this diff while on RC patrol, i've been wondering if anyone else has ever called a girl a guy or vice versa, as sometimes it's difficult to tell some users apart

†he Bread 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe... a long time ago Editor at Large got mad at me for calling her a "he". It's happened to everyone, don't worry...sometimes names can make it obvious, but some users like to say so on their userpage (I do, there are userboxes you can use). DoomsDay349 04:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I try to find a clue on their userpage. If none then I don't use gender nouns. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. However, DoomsDay, I have not (yet) been caled a woman. {D —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Springeragh seems touchy. Wonder if she's angry.  :) DoomsDay349 04:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How could I be? Click the rectangle of spilled wine: → —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 04:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What rectangle?? You're a strange girl. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose there are worse things than that to have happen… ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 04:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you getting at?? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
She's a chick, dude! Okay, chaps, that was a bloody bad impersonation of a Californian. Yeah, right- My British really sucks! INTERNAL CONFLICT ALERT. RESORT TO GENDERLESS COMPUTER IMPERSONATION. BEEP BOP BOOP... Once someone commenting on my main account's talk page used a masculine pronoun, but it must have been just an assumption. Perhaps I'm female, perhaps I'm male, perhaps I'm a dumb animal who couldn't care less, perhaps I'm a superintelligent animal who still doesn't care, perhaps I forgot where the semicolon was and instead am using these obnoxious commas, perhaps I'm doing that insane rambling again. Can I learn to comment? --Friendly PorpoiseJoin the pod! 04:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't revealed my gender but Wikipedians assume I'm male. -Monkey 13!!! 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I was called "the guy who..." once and it irritated me. Definitely I am not any kind of "guy", but then, I make that clear on my user page. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 05:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never been mistaken as a girl...But Seadog or Arjun isn't very feminine.__Seadog 05:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's your favorite super hero (or simply hero), and who's your favorite supervillain? Mine are Ash from The Evil Dead, and my favorite villain is Venom from Spider-Man.--SUITWhat!? 42! 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 06:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Master Chief and Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. bibliomaniac15 Review? 06:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Alethiophile123 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Heroes: Raven and Wonder Woman. Villains: Harley Quinn and Catwoman. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hero:Seiya; Villain:Megatron.--Húsönd 00:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Marialadouce | parlami 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Mine are all from Dragonlance. My favorite hero is Tasslehoff Burrfoot, because of his innocence and how he does "the little things" that help a lot, and my favorite villian is Ariakan, he's really awesome, cold and calculating, not to mention he's part god! (His mother was a goddess). However, my favorite all time character can't be classified as hero or villian, he's evil but he's not really a villian, is Raistlin Majere, because he's like freaking all-mighty, funny in a mean way, self-serving, and is not afraid to follow his own path despite what others want him to do. DoomsDay349 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Heroes: Master Chief, Spiderman, and Uchiha Sasuke (mainly becuase not only is he a hero, but he's also a villain). Villains: Anakin Skywalker after he becomes Darth Vader but before he gets his suit, Broly, and Uchiha Itachi. // Sasuke-kun27 00:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hero: Either Solid Snake, Rocky Balboa or Dirty Harry Villian: Either Sniper Wolf, Jack T. Ripper or Lord Flashheart

†he Bread 03:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

An IP, (talk · contribs), wanted to start a quick poll on who has piercings and who doesn't. So I'm reposting it, as it wasn't formatted right. I don't have any piercings. ~ crazytales(speak to me) 04:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a scar after I accidently pierced/impaled (give or take) myself in the hand with a pocket knife when I was three. I was young okay?!--SUITWhat!? 42! 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a pierced ear and no scars. Yet. ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 04:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Pierced ear. I'll probably get my other ear and my nose done eventually. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Non. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 07:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I had my left ear pierced twice, but had to take them out for my job and they closed. All I have left is my tongue piercing. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing pierced. But I might. You never know. Abeg92 10:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
None over here too.. Atleast I think I dont.. :-P Jayant,17 Years, Indiacontribs 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
None, and never will. Not my cup of tea, as they say across the pond.--teh tennisman 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Same as Teh Tennisman. Randfan 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to get my ear pierced (just the left one) but my parents won't let me (typical). I also have a scar right above my left eye (nothing like Kakashi Hatake's, though). // Sasuke-kun27 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Ed and E@L are back! Woohoo! bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed left?--SUITWhat!? 42! 05:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Kind of. See Here and Here for more info. It's a relief to see them both back, as they are both wonderful Esperanzians. Jam01 05:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I am Happy. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I am as happy as a hobo who wins the lottery. And then some. Happy times 6x1023. --teh tennisman 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hooray for scientific notation! That number is 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 600 sextillion. Just so you know. DoomsDay349 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto! And Kyoko (kinda?) Actually its more like "happy times ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞^∞" :) Randfan 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
SO Ed and E@L went off together. Do you think they could be secretly inlove? Culverin? Talk 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's probably gone a bit too far. Jam01 07:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was 600 sextillion, DommsDay. I was actually going for Avogadro's number, but I forgot the specifics, so I went with that number. --teh tennisman 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gather round for I shall tell the story of how I got wiki adopted by user:dfrg.msc.

I was on a wiki-boat trip with my wiki-parents when there was a wiki-explosion and wiki-snakes got on the wiki-boat. The snakes went wiki-mad wiki-killing all in there site. Dfrg.msc killed them all, though they wiki-killed my wiki-parents. Dfrg.msc draged me from the wiki-ruins of the wiki-boat (after he wiki-blew the wiki-snake full wiki-boat up) and made me his wiki adopted son.

Cheers! All around. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 09:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-what? AlethiophileAsk me why 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title be Wiki-Story????? Get into the program here!!!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes it should Ed. Culverin? Talk 06:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's true. All of it. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I wiki-don't wiki-think that your wiki-story wiki-makes any wiki-sense. Wiki-it is wiki-funny, wiki-though. Wiki-Alethiophile123 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Namaste...The story is too violent for my standards, but I like the allegorical tale.__Seadog 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is officially my 4000th edit. I've also been diagnosed with editcountitis. Woooo-hooo.--SUITWhat? 42 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here have some tablets to cure your editcountitis. Culverin? Talk 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your happy pills. Ah yeh vitamin pills hehe.....
Congrats! I hope those pills are only vitamin pills!... Once again, congrats! Jam01 06:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[editor's note: please don't ask me why the text on the original page was red]

For all who are interested, Esperanza is up for Deletion. No, not just the coffee lounge, the whole thing. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, is the place for any comments to be made. Thε Halo Θ 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agh! That could never happen! --teh tennisman 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice vote-stacking attempt there. As if somehow the prominent MFD notice on the main Esperanza page wasn't notice enough. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC), the MfD notice should be enough for everyone to notice....then by that logic, everyone on this page already knows that Esperanza is up for deletion...which means that I'm vote stacking pople who already know there is a !Vote? Flawed logic. This page is up for deletion per the Esperanza deletion entry, but it does not have an MfD notice. Thus, letting anyone who may not know, know. Thε Halo Θ 19:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! —The Great Llama talk 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No...freaking...way. I told you! I FREAKING TOLD YOU! Did I not foresee this! (Not a time to gloat, sorry). This is bullshit, pardon my French. They cannot delete this. No way. DoomsDay349 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's deleted, I'll put it back. I copied the code onto Microsoft Word and I'm going to save it. I'll do the same with other Esperanza pages. any changes may not be put back though. -Monkey 13!!! 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't just post it all back immediately, you'll be banned. It is a good idea to have the code, in case it does get deleted. DoomsDay349 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I copied it to be one of my subpages! -Monkey 13!!! 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Overwhelming consensus on the page seems keep. You won't really need a subpage, and keeping a deleted page content (assuming the offchance Esperanza gets deltaco) is against policy anyway. ~ crazytales-My talk--Your talk- 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from the MFD) Here is a bit of something to let you know how hard this will be.

I don't think we've fathomed how hard this is going to be. From this moment on, Esperanza is faced with twenty times more obstacles than ever, assuming we survive this MFD. No longer can we be lax; no longer can we sleep. Attack will come from every side, adversity from all corners. We will have to completely and utterly change Esperanza...sometimes that is my greatest fear. That in changing ourselves, we may destroy ourselves. But without the change we are guaranteed destruction; with it, there is a light of hope. I don't know what these changes are, but know this; we'll need them, and we'll need them bad.

It'll be tough. DoomsDay349 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Who do these deletionists think we are? Mindless robots with the sole purpose of editing Wikipedia? bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As for my two cents, since I don't feel like putting them on the MfD page:
For the general John Q Wikipedian who happens to know a bit about policies, Esperanza seems like WP:NOT. Under the WP:AGF, I put that, realising that Esperanza has little value to the encyclopedia itself. But as a member of Esperanza and one who loves it, I believe in WP:IAR, under which I believe that WP:NOT's dislike of this page is unnecessary. Esperanza is at heart (or whatever serves servers for a heart) an organization that serves to help Wikipedians who are new or needing some Wikilove. it is my personal opinion that without the efforts of their respective Esperanza friends, E@L and Kyoko would have left the project for good, and possibly (as they have said) the earth. So my motto for Espreanza is as such:Esperanza:Aiding Wikipedia, one wikipedian at a time. As such, I think that the entire MfD is unnecessary and hope that it is not passed, now or ever.
Cheering is appreciated Here --teh tennisman 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing right now is to remain united and do what's best for Esperanza, and Esperanzians. Also, consider contributing ideas to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul, in case you didn't see it at the top of the page.  Shardsofmetal  03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered that the overhaul message at the top of the page stands out more now. Oh well, as long as people see it, it doesn't matter how they found out, right...  Shardsofmetal  03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I just threw out the first discussion about the coffee lounge at the overhaul page. Please leave your suggestions on this issue. Thanks,  Shardsofmetal  04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Esperanza? Those *****! Dirty **** I'm **** ***** * *** and thats why ***** Son of a *****! Right! Лоок, wе блооды неед тхис шит (ох анд ин тхис цонтехт И усе шит ас а цоллецтиве ноун) со донт фригин деледт ит? Wахтс нехт? Усер пагес? Ехцусионист Бастарс! Тхе фрее цонтент енцыцлопедиа! Данм ит! Иф wе йсу wипед оут евертхинг тхат хас но енцыцопедиц валуе тхем wе мигх ас wелл дринк поисион!! Wikipedia is the Free Content Encyclopedia, if you delete the content then what? Inclusionisim is truth! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 06:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
As soon as I saw the deletion notice, I almost cried. I think I might. This is really sad. I don't mind the fact there are no more games, but deleting the whole Esperanza community? No, please, no. Jam01 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We cannot let this happen! Randfan 23:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Which user nominated Esperanza for deletion anyway and when? Culverin? Talk 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The signature, as it appears on the nom, is --RobthTalk 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

AlethiophileAsk me why 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh for the love of God ... there is waaaaay too much drama in here. --Cyde Weys 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly as much as, ahem, I have seen other users put on. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please be more concrete, I don't think everyone will get your insinuations. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would, but there's a little annoying page in the way that should probably be MfDd. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that you'd be six ways of uncivil against me if only we didn't have a prohibition against it? .. how, uncivil. --Cyde Weys 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to think that way, I cannot keep you from it, whether or not I really would. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Well. If Esperanza is such a distraction from building the encyclopedia, then we should also delete the reference desks. (Come on, this isn't a library; why does an encyclopedia have reference desks?) ((That's a rhetorical question; I'm a frequent RD contributor so relax.)) I came to the coffe lounge tonight for the first time ever (and I've known about almost since I started editing) because I have a lot of RL stress right now. Relaxing will improve my editing. So there! *pppbbbppbpbp* --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[editor's note: great, now the text is green.]

Hows this for a report card?

Class Numeral Grade Letter Grade
Gym 100 A+
Drama 93 A-
Needs to focus.
92 A-
English Language Arts 88 B+
Pre-Algebra (Math)
79 C+
Social Studies 88 B+
Science 88 B+
Overall Grade 88.42 B+

D•a•r•k•nes•s•L•o•r•di•a•n•••CCD••• 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite good (the C must've hurt, though). Well, here's mine. I actually did better than I expected. I got really close to getting a C in World Studies, but I made still made honors. I don't know my numerical grades, I don't get overall grades, and I only get graded in specials in second and fourth terms.
Class Letter Grade
French B+
English B+
Math B+
World Studies B-
Biology A

The Great Llama talk 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Both are very good, this was my last middle school one (I think Llama man is n middle school...) Randfan 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Class Letter Grade
French A (97%)
English A+ (101.4%)
Algebra A- (92%)
World Studies/History A+ (99.8%)
Biology/Astronomy A+ (101.2%)
Spanish A++ (111.7%)
Technology A+ (99%)
Luch & Recess A+++ (200%) :)
GPA 4.187
obviously they don't mean anything :). Randfan 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I got straight As (not A+s), except for science which was a B+. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to be the smartest in class up to the present, where I'm now in-between excellent and above average.--SUITWhat!? 42 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a straight A student. I was the smartest kid in 8th grade, but not now in high school.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a middle school student! But I dont feel like sharing my report card right now. Hooray for middle shcool__Seadog 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... *Gazing wistfully into the past*... Those were the years. I always thought you guys would be older... Any ways, hooray for middle school! And, Seadog/Llama Man, do you know each other personally, because it kind of seems so? Randfan 01:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Predicted all A*s and As at GSCE, currently I'm working at 2 and half A*s, 4 As, and 3 Bs. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?) 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Me too I thought we were all younger ;). By the way I do not know Llama Man in real life. But I think it would be neat if all the wikipedians could meet in real life.__Seadog 01:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah a"wikireunion" or "wikiunion" or something. That'd be cool. Randfan 01:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)




didn't we just have one of these?

Horses are a big animal but very friendly they can feel what you feel so you have to feel happy or things can go wrong

  • Comment - Now perhaps some editors who strongly opposed closing the Reference Desks see why some editors favor closing them down. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    Baby ——— Bathwater. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The baby is deformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir! I have problem with Viagra. I have box Viagra, I take 5 pill Viagra today, now pain in my penis and penis erect. It is pain and I can not wear pants. I need help sir, please, sir. Please contact the ambulance.

I cannot give you medical advice on this page either. Your IP address and contribution history suggest you are in Oslo. Please contact medical authorities there if you need help. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
But Sir, what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have no other advice for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am distress! I can not have ambulance, my penis is erectioned! I need you, Sir!

Isn't erasure of Jews a concern? Einstein very clearly self-identified as Jewish and so surely we should respect that, instead of apparently trying to minimize that aspect of his life. Here's a very detailed analysis of his identity: (there's much more controversy about whether he was German than whether he was Jewish). Bus stop could certainly comment less, but the constant reverting by others, their lack of engagement with sources, and the repeated derailing sarcastic comments by Martinevans123 ([102][103][104]) are concerning. Fences&Windows 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Attempted humour. Obviously failing. Would you like me to strike them all, or remove? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


  • Sources are of course just things to use when they are convenient. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hang on, I thought I was meant to be the sarcastic one here. Already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

[editor's note: rarely does a page be too big for me to include here, but this is one. go check the link!]

Male user:Lettherebedarklight/sandbox/?f