User talk:Tamzin/Archive/1

May 2021

Hello Tamzin, thanks for the feedback.

I can see why you think that it looks like an edit war, but it's actually not one, because it's different details, with me taking into account what George has previously said, and different reasons being given by George. So that's why you can actually see that George wasn't angrily critical.

Whenever George disagrees, and I also disagree with his disagreement, because I consider my view more logical, I always take it to the talk page to clear it up with him. You can take a gander, man, we have filled up the whole talk page lol.

However, as mentioned, I often make changes taking into account what George has previously said, because sometimes I think of an addition/edition and George has not replied to my talk comments yet, so my hands are being tied.

Also, this had made me a little upset with George, because I've noticed that, now, he often gives vague reasons for his objections, and sometimes seemingly confusing reasons, like talking about "term/event" even though it doesn't really apply, or that he ought to know better since it had previously been discussed.

It's not good that they are often so vague. They are vague and confusing to me, and to others, they paint an inaccurate picture of what's going on, so it's a double-whammy. And you were also guilty of that haha, not specifying that it was the description

So now, I'm gonna have to continue asking George on the talk page to clarify just exactly what he means when he objects to edits. And so, by following our chain of conversation, you can also see that the edits aren't controversial, it's just that George seems to have so many reasons to revert edits, often vague, unclear, or unconvincing reasons, for some reason.

I think you actually didn't have to AGF, instead, I think the most important thing is that you should have looked into the details first. Unfortunately, there's no quick-n'-easy way to do it, like, just look at how much ink we've spilled on the talk page, I don't like it, but I have to go the long and hard way with George, it's necessary, and to try to clarify his vague reasonings.

Though yeah, you do raise good points about me, and I'll take your advice into account, thank you

Also, now I understand why you were mistakenly brusque, and it's actually a relief, because when I first saw your revert, and how recent it was, I was wondering if you were weird in the same way that I find George weird haha, and now I know that you're not weird lol.

Back to the article, the main point of the article is that the Second Cold War is either a "full cold war", or more of a "cloud of tensions", or something in-between, but it's definitely a thing that is currently existing, and therefore, that's why I'm thinking that "powers of the Second Cold War" is not saying that there is an ongoing "full" Second Cold War.

So now you might start to see what looking into the details reveals, that, hey, it's not bad faith editing against consensus, it's not really an edit war, and that the caption doesn't really say that there's a "full" cold war ongoing, haha. and thanks for your understanding, good mutual dialogue Halo FC (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(Edit: changed "proper" cold war to "full" cold war) Halo FC (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Add: By the way @Tamzin:, hope I'm not bothering you, I'm not sure if I've cleared up the map caption, though if I have, I would like to say "cleared up misunderstanding with Tamzin". and well I don't really mean to get your name involved, but I would like to undo the damage, thanks Halo FC (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Halo FC: I stand by my feeling that "Powers of..." or anything like that puts too much in the encyclopedia's voice. Even to the extent that "Second Cold War" is a term used to describe things that are objectively occurring, it's not a term that everyone (or even most people) would use to describe those things. When we say "Powers of the Second Cold War" or anything like that, we are saying, "There's something happening called the Second Cold War," and I don't think the article's sources bear that out.

But this is a nuanced content issue that I don't really want to wade that far into. As long as you and George and others are talking things through on the talk page, and everyone's respecting the consensuses that are reached there, that's what matters. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 12:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: ok, I can see where you're coming from on the connotations of "Second Cold War", and I think I can clarify it a bit better. so you mentioned what everyone or most people would use, however I think that that's the key premise of the article, and so the caption is serving the article's premise as written in the intro, they're sort of integrated. And then it'd mean that, mentioning the term "Second Cold War" doesn't mean that the world is definitely in a "full cold war" right now. At the same time, I'm also happy to consider your suggestions on a better caption. Halo FC (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Add: sorry to bother you, so hope I've clarified it well, and even if you agree, I think if you wouldn't want your name to be involved, no problem it's fine Halo FC (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've also thought of a modified caption, "Three prominent powers of Second Cold War-related great power competition"

I'm also gonna add the text below to the talk section on "Term/event", hope it's not cluttering your talk page too much

I've thought of a way of thinking about the "term/event" issue. The situation or status of the Second Cold War could be a 'cloud of tensions', such a cloud being over the world, or being between the rival world powers; or it could be a 'full cold war'. We could use the acronyms 'CoT' and 'FCW'.

Now, an FCW is still very much a muted occurrence compared to a hot war. And so, it's quite a grey area as to when things go from being a CoT to an FCW, a "fuzzy" grey area between them. You could also think of it as there being a smooth gradient between a CoT and an FCW. So, it could also be something in-between the two, which is what I think is actually going on. I'll call something that's in-between a 'cloud of cold war', or 'CoCW' for short.

So I think that the article should be treated as CoCW, though I'm also open to other lines of thinking. Though to get everyone on the same page, I think the suggestion by Firejuggler86 seems quite helpful. so we can treat the status of the Second Cold War as indeterminate, and we just describe what the various sources say about its status. Halo FC (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Halo FC: This is all great stuff to talk about on Talk:Second Cold War. Like I said in my last edit, I don't have much left to say on this topic. You should use the talk page to discuss with other editors who are involved in that article. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 00:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: oh I see, as you had started with "I stand by my feeling", and then I didn't pay that close attention to your words, my apologies. so, yup, ok, noted your comments, thanks Halo FC (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Arabian sea

I had never said it should be called persian sea.no body have the right to change an international recognized name.it was insisted by other user I just added some documents to say it was called by other names and there are numerous documents in Arabic that can mentioned other names. but it is just a historical remined not anything more. I am not in favor of change of any names.you should not revert it but you can edite and delet any source you think is not reliable Basp1 (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Made me chuckle. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -- Eck (he/him) | [[User talk:Eckstasy 02:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

please don't edit people's talk pages and talk unfounded shite.

sincerely.

Eck (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, please be more civil in how you approach others. But very well. If I have an issue with your civility in the future I'll skip bringing it up with you, and go directly to administrators instead. Please do take note of the following, though:

{{ds/alert|ap}}

Eck (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eckstasy: Did you intend to copy everything I wrote? The comment of yours that concerned me was "Who writes this nonsense?" While you said you haven't directly 'personally attacked' anyone", a personal attack is still a personal attack even if you don't specify whom it's about. Now, is there a particular comment of mine that you view as having been a personal attack? Or are you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Feinberg

Hi Tamzin, this is no big deal, and I wouldn't bother correcting it at this point because it doesn't affect the weight of your argument, but in regard to this edit at the James Barry Rfc, Leslie Feinberg is, of course, trans, not cis. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Whoops, yeah, just thought it looked bad to say trans woman woman, and didn't occur to me that she was still indeed trans and a woman, just not a trans woman. At least I think that's right? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right! To say she was a "trans woman" would imply she had been AMAB, which of course, she wasn't.

(Off-topic: there's an indentation screw-up in the section above this one, which affects this section, and probably every future section on the page after this; I was looking at it trying to find it. Haven't yet, but if I can find it in the next 5-10', I'll fix it.) Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you found it; or at least, removing the AC/Ds box fixed it. I seem to remember, that pre-pending an AC/DS tempate with a colon for indentation does that. Anyway, you fixed it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, right, because you can't put a table in a list item, and MediaWiki is bad at fixing it if you try to. Eck copied it from me doing the same on his page; I really should have known better, because recently I spent like 30 minutes trying to figure out why someone else transcluding a userbox in an MfD comment had broken the "closed MfD" styling, only to learn the table/list item thing. But in this case I was trying to avoid breaking the list à la WP:*:.

You didn't need to know any of that, I'm sure, but yeah. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Heh; I seem to forget, and "relearn" that, about every 2-5 years. And btw, I *do* like that kind of explanation, so I'm glad you included it; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing quoted material

Material quoted directly from sources should not be changed, regardless of the English variation used elsewhere on the page, such as your edit here. As stated in the WP:ENGVAR guidelines you mentioned in your edit summary, quotations should be as given in the source: "a quotation from a British source should retain British spelling, even in an article that otherwise uses American spelling". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'd overlooked the context there. You didn't include an edit summary on your initial revert, so I didn't understand the rationale for it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for not leaving an edit summary as that initial revert by me was when the other editor had continued changing quotes after I left several messages for them. They have now responded on their talk page, and so I think they just didn't realize what they were doing. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@self:

Plip!

@Wallyfromdilbert: Yeah, I noticed when (belatedly) checking your contribs that it was the only one missing a summary. Bad luck that that happened to be the only one I saw, I guess, but I really should have checked for context first—I got rather annoyed when someone failed to give me the same courtesy before chastising me for {{Uw-biog4im}}ing a "new" IP, failing to check the surrounding context that made clear the IP was a sockpuppet. So, I apologize. I guess I'm just getting a bit jaded from how often I see people revert content without explanation. But that's no excuse—WP:AAGF applies—and thus I shall self-{{minnow}}. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong! It is easy to miss that a change is to a quotation, and it just happens to be one of the things I look for. I only left my message here to help if case you were not aware (especially since some spelling mistakes are fine to fix in quoted material). I always try to use an edit summary, and I should have in this case since I was not reverting clear vandalism that would have been obvious to others. It's funny that happened to be the one edit you saw! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Much love

Thanks for your assistance. Do Remain safe Tamzin. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Health note

As an editor with a mental health condition that sometimes affects their judgment, I take very seriously my duty to keep that from negatively affecting my Wikipedia activities. I haven't said or done anything on Wikipedia of late that I think indicates questionable judgment, but that's becoming a bit more difficult to maintain. While I don't think it's particularly likely I'd do something stupid and tarnish my reputation or get my permissions yanked, out of an abundance of caution I'll be taking a wikibreak until I have my meds straightened out, which might be a few days, might be a few weeks. Till then, if you post here or ping me, I'll likely still respond, but can't promise I'll be able to respond at length. Also still reachable by email or on WP:DISCORD, with the same caveat. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Best wishes. —valereee (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Smell the roses! Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Look after yourself! firefly ( t · c ) 09:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

ISIS-K

Usually I remove sections started by users who have been indeffed for related conduct, but since this contains an accusation of misconduct on my part, I'll keep it here for the sake of transparency. If any good-faith user agrees with that criticism, feel free to comment below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"ISIS controls more land than it does, calling it a current proto-state rather than a former unrecognized one, removing a well-sourced statement that it is anti-Semitic (something I'm not even sure ISIS would disagree with), and downplaying its involvement in beheadings, all comes off strongly as whitewashing. Perhaps that's not your intention, but that's certainly how it seems to me." Firstly, I never called it a "current" proto-state. Secondly, none of the source say that it's "anti-semitic". If you called it "anti-semitic" according to that source, it's anti virtually anyone. Thirdly, I did not "downplay" its involvement in beheadings. Logare (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) No, I'd overlooked the 1RR notice at that page. The first was made by script, so no notice popped up, and for the second it was just banner blindness. That said, I won't be self-reverting. Your account is clearly here to push pro-ISIS content, and I will not make the encyclopedia worse just to blindly follow a policy that was imposed to prevent disruption of the sort you cause, especially when you've given no intelligible reason to exclude the content in question. The rest of this, a) I won't dignify with a response, and b) is more suited for the article's talk page, not my user talk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Also, wait, I don't even need to rest on IAR here. You're at 2RR too. Some fucking nerve, man. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

code-switching

I'm sorry anyone has to code-switch here (or at least to code switch more than any cisgender straight white male should be required to in the workplace, which as we've seen many times some of them don't even bother with then). But, yeah. —valereee (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't think code-switching is in itself evil. As you say, everyone has to do it sometimes. Some more than others, maybe, but some of us lead lives that diverge from the mainstream more than others—sometimes by choice, sometimes due to the hands we're dealt. I do wish that Wikipedia were more conscious of some of the ways that people are different—as I allude to on my userpage, I think it shows a complete disconnect with reality that we put warnings in articles because they contain Unicode, but don't if they contain explicit descriptions of child sexual abuse (for example). But code-switching is just about communication. All communication is artificial and arbitrary. All outward personas are artificial and arbitrary. As someone with no natural knack for communication and an outward persona that basically amalgamates a lot of partial truths about myself into an impression of a singular identity, that may be easier for me to accept than it is for some others. I think what matters for everyone is to find the places we can be ourselves as much as possible. If Wikipedia is such a place for some people, then they're lucky; but I think that's more by coincidence than by design in those cases. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamzin. You're always thoughtful and often thought-provoking. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sky Living

User:Onel5969 has taken the unilateral decision to undo the splitting of the Sky Living article from Sky Witness. I have asked Onel5969 for an explanation as to why this has been done, rather than reverting it at this stage so as to avoid an edit war which I might lose.

I received no objections when i mooted the split so this appears to be one person's view and it was done without any discussion.

Given that you contributed to my redirect discussion, and closed it after I'd recreated the Sky Living page, I'd be grateful for any guidance/support regarding re-splitting the two articles. Rillington (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: 1998 United States Capitol shooting RfC

Hey! I'd really like to know if your post on the RfC was meant to be a vote of support or opposition, or just a miscellaneous comment that you wanted to throw in there. I'm trying to keep track of the tally of votes for the purposes of the discussion. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Answered on your talk since I'd already posted there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Pearl shell

I'm really confused about this redirect discussion which was closed based mostly on your input. You say that Bivalve shell discusses the formation of pearls. But I don't see that in there anywhere. I see brief mentions of "mother of pearl", but nothing on pearls. Since the dict def you quoted says a pearl shell is a pearl-producing shell (pearl oyster), I don't see Bivalve shell is a good target since it doesn't even mention pearls, only the material from which they are formed. Wouldn't Pearl#creation be better is is about pearls and discusses their formation in the shell. Mentioning here since the discussion is closed. MB 20:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@MB: I think I meant to say discusses the formation of mother-of-pearl, which is the important part here. The goal is to tell readers about pearl shells, which are a subset of bivalve shells. So I do stand by my !vote. That said, I see your logic, and Irealize my misstatement could have influenced others' choice not to comment there. If you'd like to request that Rosguill reöpen the thread, I don't object. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, please reopen this RFD per above for further discussion. MB 22:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the SPI I've filed:

I decided to withdraw it, mainly because I realized I might've been mistaken. I'm dreadfully sorry about the inconvenience I may have caused you. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@DarkMatterMan4500: The inconvenience isn't really to me, since I wasn't clerking that case. In the future, though, as a basic sanity check when putting together an SPI, you should make sure you're able to point to at least one thing that one of the listed sox has in common with the master or a previously-blocked sock, with diffs for both. It's also almost never worthwhile to report 0-edit accounts, unless their username patterns are exceedingly obvious. If there's 0-edit sleepers, they'll either get picked up by CU or they won't. There's not much non-CUs can do.

Speaking of sox, you a Red Sox fan? :) I clicked through to the Miraheze link on your userpage and saw we grew up a few towns apart. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

At times, I do watch Red Sox games. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Border crossings, ANI, SPI

Hello, Tamzin. I'm worried that a fellow editor might have cherrypicked and misrepresented what you said, at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings. Fyi. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

😳 Oops.

Thank you for correcting my silly mistake at User talk:Hayleez. Presumably I accidentally some past version of the page, but I have no idea how I came to do so. JBW (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I suspect the devs throw little things like this into MediaWiki just to gaslight all of us.^{[humor... mostly]} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Who knows? JBW (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: P.S., you might want to check out User talk:Favaroon (with thanks to Spicy for the find). If I were clerking this at SPI I'd recommend an indef for Favaroon for evasion of scrutiny after warnings on the Hayleez account, but no sanctions for the Hayleez account since your warning does the trick, preventativeness-wise. But I wouldn't fault an admin who just indeffed both. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, Tamzin. If I had known about that when Favaroon was still active, I would certainly have blocked at least that account, perhaps both. Also, if I had known about it when I posted my message to Hayleez, I might perhaps have blocked then. However, as things are, since Favaroon has not edited since the admission of sockpuppetry, and Hayleez hasn't edited since my warning, I am inclined to leave things as they are for now. Obviously that will be subject to review if and when either account resumes editing. It also occurs to me that, since the editor is known to have switched to a sockpuppet because of being warned by another editor, they may do so again following recent warnings, so if any similar editing starts up from a new account it may be worth looking at. JBW (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: That's fair enough. I'll keep an eye out. Might set rc_scanner to flag CSD taggings by new accounts for a bit (which TBH is a good use case regardless). I'll let you know if I spot another. Or I'll just SPI it at that point because that'd be three. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you can choose to contact me or go to SPI as you prefer, or both. SPI cases sometimes languish for a ridiculously long time before any administrator gets there, leaving the sockpuppeteer to carry on. I can't promise to always be available, but it's likely that I'll be quicker. On the other hand, if a CheckUser seems necessary I won't be able to help. JBW (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I like "cetacean needed". JBW (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A little nod to one of the only jokes to survive in mainspace by consensus; ctrl+f it at List of cetaceans. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow! I never knew about that. JBW (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Its me again

Hey!! Hope all is well. StroopWaffles are still on my radar but since I am a bad cook, waiting for the next bakery run lol. Don't wanna take up anymore of your time then I already have but had a question about copyright and thought maybe you could guide me in a direction. New account doing some edits here: Jay Sadguru Swami. Nothing bad but they added some off-wiki links to a branches youtube video in the see also section. Someone else had undone the links addition a few days ago and I think the undo made sense so I reverted back to that and left a talk page entry. The user dropped the lyrics on the page. This is a ritual/prayer so I figure similar to a poem or song. This is the closest I could find for a policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lyrics_and_poetry and not sure how copyright hits something that is a few centuries old but if I read the policy correctly, the article should focus on "analytical framework" so didn't know if lyrics flies with policy. Not opposing the edit if it meets policy. More-so wanted to educate myself on what is allowed. Thanks for the time. Kbhatt22 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: Sorry for my slow response to this. As noted below, I'm gonna be away from Wikipedia for a bit, but did want to follow up. Haven't looked into this particular case, but as a general answer: Something a few centuries old wouldn't be copyrighted, but overquoting can be a stylistic concern as well as a legal one. Otherwise we'd be no different than Wikisource. As to what's a valid external link, see WP:XLINK. If you have more copyright questions, my favorite person to nag is User:Firefly.

While I'm away, if you want to take a more proäctive role with the stuff listed at WP:NPOVN—striking stuff that seems fine, tagging stuff that doesn't, etc.—please feel free. If the thread gets archived, feel free to copy the list of affected pages into my userspace, maybe User:Tamzin/Moksha pages. And if any talk-page stalkers want to chip in on that effort at NPOVN, I would hugely appreciate that.

So, yeah, be back in a bit. I know you've got one or two other experienced Wikipedians to rely on for guidance. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, always happy to help with copyright queries. :) firefly ( t · c ) 08:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thank you so much for the reply and please take care. I wish you the absolute best. You are awesome and amazing on Wiki and I am sure you are equally awesome and amazing off wiki too. You are extremely valuable to the Wiki community, especially to noobs like myself, so I am rooting for you with the best of wishes. Its not much but sending you a big Baymax Hug Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly: You don't know what you signed up for lol. My indecisiveness gets annoying really fast but I promise I will behave haha Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirect created at the request of a sock

Hello! I notice you struck/hid some comments at Talk:SIC, apparently by a sock user. I created a redirect SIC (journal) at the request of that user - I had no reason to suspect them of being a sock as the request seemed reasonable. Should that redirect also be deleted? It seems to me a valid redirect, even if the user requesting it was not valid, though it's not an area I know much about. --Hrossey (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hrossey: Per BANREVERT, it's at any editor's discretion whether to revert contributions by a sockpuppet. In this case, I'm being very aggressive with his non-mainspace contributions, since that's what he's most focused on, and I want to send a clear message that he is not welcome here. It may sound cruel, but sometimes deleting someone's hard work is the best way to dissuade them from coming back. I've mostly left his content work alone because I don't think it'll make much of a difference in whether he returns. (The one thing that might make a difference is rolling back Pierre Albert-Birot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it was in such a poor state before that I just can't bring myself to. I'd feel differently if his ban were for content disruption, but it was always about disruption at RfD and RM.) My point in all this is: Up to you. You created the redirect, so unlike the other stuff it can't be G5'd. If you'd like to tag it for G7 deletion, that's your call, based on what you think is best for the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. It seems to me that it is probably best to leave the redirect in place as it is potentially useful - this sock editor should be getting a clear enough message from your response to his other contributions! --Hrossey (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"I don't like calling people liars"

Then SPI was an odd choice of occupation :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

​Heh, I reworded that. Touch more blunt than I intended. But yeah, guess what I mean more is, I don't like calling people liars unless I'm willing to stake a block on it. Doesn't really make sense to say "I'm confident you broke policy and then came to SPI and lied directly to a clerk about it... But I'll let you off with a warning."

Btw, speaking of occupations, congrats on the promotion! Is it true CUs make triple what clerks do? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the pay raise is nice, but what's really cool is we get free lunches twice as often! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: You aren't meant to mention the lunches! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was OK as long as we didn't say what the lunches were, where they were served, or who made them. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"A lunch has already been made and didn't taste very good. The cook felt the lunch tasted a bit like a lunch we had a while ago, but most of the diners felt it tasted too different." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I would wish to convey my deepest apologies to you regarding User talk:SSG123#November 2021 and User talk:SSG123#Final warning: Editing the same pages while logged in and as an IP. You see that it was my first venture for andminship and due to lack of experience, I have committed some blunders. Please do not understand this as an attempt to pacify you but as me taking an opportunity to thank you for pointing out the mistakes which I have made and bringing them to my notice. I assure you that in future, such things will not be repeated. Thanking You, Yours faithfully, SSG123 (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Have I lost touch

I tend to consider myself among those who err on the side of caution in matters of CSD, and despite my habitual laziness in keeping abreast of changes to the PAGs (perennial on-and-off editing, recurring WikiMalaisse, NOTBURO, DGAF, etc, and yes I know those aren't good excuses), I can't think of any time recently where my CSD tagging was off until yesterday when I had two declned in a matter of hours. I did some rereading but everything still looks textbook I mean this still strikes me as completely uncontroversial, but maybe I'm just dense or there's an rfc I'm missing somewhere. Don't get me wrong, there's rarely harm in a full xfd; the whole point of speedies is for stuff that is guaranteed to be deleted at xfd anyway, but this all just seems so bureaucratic. Anyway we crossed paths a couple times in xfds some ways back and it seemed like you were on top of all this stuff, so I thought you might know something I don't, (although No such user seems to be an the same page as me). Thanks for your time. Due to my current set-up my IP is hopping, mostly uncontrollably, all over the place. I probably won't respond once that happens since in the long-run that leaves open the possibility for random people in eastern europe to try and impersonate me, but I will definitely see any reply. I'm well aware an account would solve this problem but that doesn't change the fact that meatball:LoginsAreEvil. Regards, 79.126.108.63 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've commented at the MfD. Not sure what the other case you're referring to is, but, we all have speedies declined from time to time. I wouldn't infer anything like having lost touch just on the basis of a few declines. After all, if 100% of your speedy taggings are upheld, that means you're likely missing some you should have tagged. (And of course, some things are in the eye of the beholder reviewing admin. Some admins will U5 a userpage that I wouldn't even blink twice at. Some will G11 a new article just because it has the word "company" somewhere in there. And I say that knowing that there's some things that go in the opposite direction, things that I maintain fall under a plain-text reading of some CSD or other, but which some admins feel do not.)
  P.S., you should take a look at m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation § IP Masking Implementation Approaches (FAQ). You may stand to benefit from the "session-based identity" approach, if it's implemented. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any recommendations...

...on a CU to contact privately? (i)/(ii) did it again 15 minutes before the SPI was archived (seemingly from a different IP range, although I'm terrible at reading these things, and for obvious reasons I'm not going to disclose any part of the number here), and (iii) is appealing his block again, without apparently disclosing whether or not he block-evaded. Over the years I've been in private contact with a number of people who technically have CheckUser privileges, but at least one of them has gone on record as not wanting to that particular tool, and as should be clear from my wording at the SPI I didn't even know that privately contacting a CU was an option (things may have changed since 2013 or it may have just been a BEANS issue). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hijiri! :) I'm not sure if it was once not the case, but at the moment WP:CONTACTCU allows for reaching out privately to CUs. I know that TheresNoTime, who was the CU on this case, is available by email or on IRC for such matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Page curation log

User:Tamzin, I am not sure what the curation of the Occupatonal Health Science entails. Having started the page, I wondered if there is something I can do to be helpful. Iss246 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iss246: That was a standard system message to let you know that I, a new page reviewer, have reviewed the redirect you created, Occupational Health Science, and determined that there is nothing about it requiring urgent review (or that the reviewer has fixed any such issues). In this case, it's a valid redirect, so I marked it as reviewed. Don't worry, it doesn't mean there's anything for you to do; the opposite, if anything. :)

That said, this is actually a case where normally I would have done something other than just review it. Specifically, the parenthetical disambiguator you used for the target Occupational Health Science (journal) is unnecessary. Just having it at the Occupational Health Science title is fine. So normally I would have just moved the article, but the article is currently at AfD, and it's frowned upon to move an article that's at AfD. If the article is kept, I'll "reverse the redirect" by moving the article to the shorter title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation User:Tamzin. I ordinarily do not put "(journal)" in parentheses. I started several WP pages for journals including the Journal of Occupational Health Psychoogy. There was no need to include the "(journal)" add-on. We know that it is a journal from the title of the outlet. The term "occupational health science" is a term that has been used in scientific papers and conference meetings. It occurred to me that I should use "(journal)" as an add-on to distinguish the journal for readers interested in the subject of occupational health science as a subject and not necessarily as a journal. I also think someone will eventually start of WP page on occupational health science as a science and I would want to avoid having to create a disambiguation page. Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iss246: I've heard differing perspectives from different Wikipedians on what we should do when the first article created with title X is clearly not the primary topic for X. Both sides make good points. In this case, though, I don't think that matters, due to a guideline called WP:DIFFCAPS. Since Wikipedia article titles are normally written in sentence case, and article on the general concept of Occupational health science would be capitalized that way, not as Occupational Health Science. We have tons of articles using that format, such as Ice cube / Ice Cube. So I think it would be fine (and standard, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines) to have the same situation with the field of occupational health science and the journal of the same name. But if you disagree, I can start an RM after the AfD, assuming the article is kept. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Tamzin, you are a more experienced hand at WP than me. Your explanation is compelling. I am okay with the idea that we can return to the name "Occupational Health Science." But I think we should let the dust clear regarding the deletion proposal. If, as I hope, the page will remain and not be deleted, then we can work on restoring the name of the page to "Occupational Health Science." Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

continuing the discussion?

I wonder if you had time to think more about the hoax discussion? Your input was very helpful, and as a neutral party, you may be better able to build a consensus there than someone like me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

About my effort to update the page of the neuroscientist and writer Sidarta Ribeiro

Hi Tamzin. I am a friend of Sidarta Ribeiro, I follow his trajectory as a scientist and writer and now that his book The Oracle of Night is being released in English I thought he deserved to have his Wikipedia page – which was outdated and with some objectively wrong information – updated and correct. I am not being paid for this work nor am I working with Luiza Mugnol Ugarte. All information I have added regarding academic titles, papers, positions, research areas, awards and publications is strictly factual. There is no way to consider “hard”, objective and correct information as “promotional”, right? The only part of my updates that can be discussed as to whether or not they are promotional is the description of The Oracle of Night book. Compared to other book descriptions published on Wikipedia, I don't consider it out of the box. But since all text of this type has an authorial, subjective dimension, if you find my description of the book inadequate, OK, then let it not be restored. (If I have time, I can try to make a “less positive” synthesis.) Given these considerations, I ask that the additions e corrections I made in the introduction, and in the sections “academic degrees”, “fields of research”, “awards” and “works” be restored. As it is strictly factual, all the information I have added in these sections would be the same if included by anyone else who properly updated the page. (Incidentally, this information can be confirmed in a single document: the “Lattes Curriculum” of Sidarta Ribeiro, published on the official resumés platform of the academic community in Brazil, in which the insertion of false information implies legal consequences: http://buscatextual. cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do. If appropriate, I can add this link to the page after the information is restored.) Flavio Righetto (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Righetto (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: The Shaban sox

Thanks. I wasn't sure where to file it, it wasn't the sockpuppetry as much as it was all the threats, insults and sabotage attempts. I'll be on the look out for this user, he's been quite a pain for the past 2 months.--MexTDT (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Medieval Monuments in Kosovo

Tilted?

Less tilted

Please have mercy! I don't want. El_C 13:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Yeah, that's a whole lot of socking effort for an article with <1k pageviews per month (where probably half those views come from admins and clerks). If someone just set a script to block anyone with less than 20k edits who touches it, there'd be no false positives in the last 20 edits, going back to mid-July. (Not that anyone should do that. But it's a funny thought.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me or is "Pecka patrijarsija" tilted? Also, I'm seeing double — four Pecka patrijarsijas! Anyway, should I just WP:ECP and be done with it...? El_C 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Part of me wants to say, "Oh, just let them tire themselves out edit-warring there." Not like the content they're edit-warring over is particularly offensive, just your run of the mill "What country is this?" nonsense. Another part of me says "Yes but we don't use mainspace for honeytrapping." And a third part says "That article needs some love and ECP won't help with that." So I dunno. If it were my call I'd probably leave it be for at least a few more iterations, but I'm not too familiar with these banned users—only read up on this last night—so take that with a grain of salt.

P.S. My favorite thing associated with historic churches in that part of the globe will always be "If you die before you die, you won't die when you die". Which I can't find coverage on on Wikipedia, but the Internet swears is (a translation of) a phrase you'll see written at Mount Athos. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If I do before I do do... Do-ing nothing is pretty much my favourite thing, so sounds good, let's do that. It looks tilted! El_C 20:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The "tilting" in the image is fairly standard geometric distortion from using a short focal length lens off-axis. I made an attempt to correct the distortion. As always with these kinds of corrections, it's not perfect, but better. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

~giggles helplessly~

At least it keeps them in the sock drawer! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Test/Sub/Archive

Hello, Tamzin,

Well, this page had a curious edit history. Looks like it started as a valid SPI case and then went wonky. Curious pages pop up at CSD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Please look at this sock puppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benjamin.Olivier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkykung (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for making the criticism section better. But I am sure they will be back to blank it again. Dunkykung (talk)

Socks

This and the two following FP reports filed by Special:Contributions/Rajiv_Nair_EIL & Special:Contributions/DRajkhowa. Possibly the same person, based on the edit, using separate accounts, or meats. Think there is a COI/PAID issue here too. (editor didn't respond to questions at User talk:Rajiv Nair EIL & User talk:DRajkhowa). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I can leave {{uw-agf-sock}} if you want, plus {{uw-paid}} for the latter (since DanCherek has already warned the former), but if you'd rather go straight to SPI or COIN I can hold off. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No preference on how/if it's dealt with, just wanted to raise attention to the issue. I tagged the page with {{undisclosed paid}} for review since that, along with other history, seems dubious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Warned. If they persist, probably better to go to COIN than to SPI, but, we'll see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your honeytrap appears to be attracting sock fluff

I have added a new SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali. Obviously I cannot tell what they are, but skilled folk can. One has just posted an image to commons and added it to the draft. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Looks like my fellow trainee Jack Frost has already gotten to it. :) Annoyingly, that IP looks to be on a different ISP (and thus different /8 range) than the one you caught them on a month ago, although the same city (the draft subject's hometown). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I do wonder why Cervantes thinks he is important! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a feeling that all of these are Cervantes himself. But I don't really care one way or the other. If he's paying money for this he's onto a loser.

"Next one please!" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And a further five! They have branched out into spamming different articles Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

My curiosity was stoked after getting pinged on the SPI. I'd be happy to create a private edit filter to catch these if that would be helpful. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie from a non-SPI team, member's perspective I think this would be useful. I've tracked a good few down and opened SPIs for them. Having a filter drop a large hint to interested parties would be handy.

I find them by searching for the quoted string "George Cervantes" in all areas, which is a bit clumsy. This Cervantes of not the only one, of course. Those whose wiki-hobby is investigating SPIs will have a better opinion than an ordinary editor. This is just my sixpennyworth. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Just wanted to say, sorry that I haven't followed up on this yet. Been a bit busy in the cursèd real life, and mostly limiting my on-wiki activities to things I can handle quickly; will take a look at the SPI when I have the chance, hopefully today. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There is very little on Wikipedia that is urgent. Even massive vandal sprees can be reverted at a click by those with the right permissions. An SPI can await ts turn. 👍 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

SPI request

Hi Tamzin, would you mind just noting here that the account was later CU blocked as a sock of NoCal100? Just makes it easier to refer to for later SPIs. nableezy - 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy:  Done. FWIW, that was the sort of tough case where a decent argument is made, but the risk of blocking an innocent person runs too high. My training as an SPI clerk has been that you need to show both that an account could be a sock and that it reasonably couldn't not be a sock. You easily met the first half of that, but in a messy topic area like PIA it's often hard to meet the second. I'm glad that CU evidence was able to clear up what behavioral evidence was not.

Also FWIW, I think this is a case where an extensive back-and-forth in the "Comments by other users" section scared a lot of clerks/CUs away. Next time I see a NoCal filing, if no clerk's already on it, I plan to clerk that section pretty agressively with respect to diversions and tangents, as I think this would be in the best interest of both the filer and the accused; if you're the filer and you want to avoid that kind of chaos, feel free to ping me. All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I agree 100% on the bit about the other users section. Thanks! nableezy - 19:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OfficialPankajPatidar

Trust me, I've got you beat in the feeling like an idiot department today, but I got a kitten on my talk page for my troubles, which I'm happy to share with you in the hopes that it makes you feel better, as it did for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It's a funny thing. A few years back I made some lifestyle changes that got me to stop rushing through things, and one result was that I started subvocalizing more when I read and write. This seems to have had the effect that I have an unusually strong tendency to make homophonous typos. You'll see me from time to time correcting unusual typos of that sort in my posts at SPI and elsewhere... Anyways, point is, Google generally only corrects lookalike typos, not soundalike ones (beyond common ones like "through"/"threw"), and thus when I mix up something like "Mark" and "Mike" (not the error in question here, but similar in nature), Google doesn't catch it. Oh well. I'd've requested the check either way, but do feel a bit silly.

And thank you for the cat. Back when I was a Wikidata admin I had File:I IZ SERIUS ADMNIM THIZ IZ SERIUS BIZNIS lolcat.jpg on my userpage. (And re your last post on this page, assuming I do run the gauntlet and pass, it'll be on my userpage or talkpage here.) So, cute cats are always welcome.

How's your day been? What makes you more of an idiot than me? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Check my block log. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oooof yeah. Well. No notification when you get blocked (I'd know), so hopefully none of the mistaken ones noticed. :D

The other day I blocked an LTA on two of the test wikis, which was my first set of non-test blocks in... eight years, I think? Still afraid someone's gonna tell me I fucked something up... would give me a pretty bad bad-block percentage if so. Although I started out at 100%, so I guess you can't do worse than that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are an amazing Wikipedian, keep up the great work! LGBTQ+ Pride forever ;)

SassyGamer483 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Engineers India page

Dear Sir, this is in response to your comment on my talk page. I certify that I am not being paid for the posts in Engineers India. Wherever possible I have tried to provide citations to establish authenticity of the content. I am a new user that's why edits may not be very professional but there is absolutely no payment angle here. Pl let me now if more clarification is required. Thanks DRajkhowa (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As soon as I return

As soon as I return I will work with them and try to get them to set goals for themselves and what they want to edit on Wikipedia. I didn't push it because I know they were just trying to feel everything out first. It went a little excessive but I truly believe it was community building. I really hope they don't get discouraged by everything. --ARoseWolf 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Off-Wiki communication

Hello Tazmin! You have been really helpful with our experience as a plurality on Wikipedia, and I wanted to say thank you. If you are comfortable, is there a possible way we are able to communicate off-Wiki so that we are able to have a conversation and not break the rules on Wikipedia? I don't want to bypass any of your boundaries! -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: If you set up email on your account, you can email me through Special:EmailUser/Tamzin. (If you do so, I recommend making a dedicated email address for Wikipedia, rather than using your main one.) :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

We arent able to access Email through our computer.. do you possibly have Pinterest or Discord? /nm /npre -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for being an awesome contributor to Wikipedia and helping new editors throughout their journey! -Gretchen

RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Testing Echo weirdness

@Example:. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with close.

Hi. Just wanted to notify you that I disagreed with your close for the following reasons. Please consider reopening. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tamzin!

Happy New Year!

Tamzin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

It's spelled "lead" (smile)

This is the second most important issue on Wikipedia.^{[Citation Needed]}

The most important issue may be found at User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. :)

Please see:

• https://howardowens.com/lede-vs-lead/

"The fact is, in none of the dozens of old journalism books that I have examined — none of them — spell it “lede.... I can’t find the definitive first reference to “lede” but it doesn’t start appearing in journalism books until the 1980s."

• https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2019/lead-vs-lede-roy-peter-clark-has-the-definitive-answer-at-last/

"I am writing this essay... to help dispel (or should I say “dis-spell”) a preference for “lede” over “lead” to describe the beginning or introduction of a news story."

-- Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account: Mom's a journalist, Dad was a journalist, Dad's parents and sister are/were journalists. Pretty sure I'd get disowned by three and haunted by two if I ever even thought to spell it "lead". Like... Ewwww. How do you even tell what that means? Articles don't have leads, any more than they have golds or irons. "Lead" is a bad word in general. My first few days of playing Minecraft, I thought that the "lead" (leash) was like, supposed to be a piece of lead (Pb) somehow. They really led me on. (Look closely and you'll also catch the occasional hed, graf, and kome in my edit summaries.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you not find the evidence in the linked pages that lede is a recent neologism and the lack of evidence of it being widely used by journalists before the late 1970s compelling? Send those two links to your journalist relatives. You might be surprised at their reaction.

In many cases it hinders communication if we don't use the same spelling or grammar. Yes, you can decide to use a few non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(Talk page enjoyer) Even if "lede" is a neologism, I think it's better. Easily distinguishable, while phonetically the same to the pronunciation of "lead" used for the same purpose. If that puts me on a slippery slope to the tower of Babel, so be it. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Notify box

Thanks for the kind message but I have had requests denied because I didn't inform the suspected sockpuppet. So, I'm afraid I will have to continue to check that box until there is an option to only inform the sockpuppet. Sjö (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: Thanks for following up. Can I ask when/where that happened? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t remember now, I have been active for a long time. But I checked the guidelines and as they say that notification is just an option, I’ll try making reports without checking that box. Sjö (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: To very belatedly follow up: Heh, you really have been here a long time, because NavPopups won't even tell me how long. Anyways, yeah, I think the norms changed at one point in a pretty hard 180°. The next version of Twinkle will be removing the feature entirely, at my suggestion with the support of some others on the SPI team. Editors of course can still do it manually, but I'm of the opinion that, if you do have a good reason to be notifying someone of an SPI, it's probably a situation where it should be a custom message rather than a template. Since usually if I notify people it's to say something like "Okay you clearly have something to do with this user, but are you a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet?"... just more politely. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Polari reversions

Hello Tamzin! I'd just like to let you know that I saw and don't disagree with your reversion on Polari. I was reverting the reversion mainly because I thought it was a misuse of rollback. (I very slightly prefer "homosexual" in general, but prefer the more general "sex workers" in this context.) Thanks for explaining. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: Thanks, yeah, I hope my edit summary was clear that I don't disagree with your procedural revert. I've made many reverts like that one myself before. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. On an entirely different note, have you considered running for adminship? I've seen you around in a variety of places, and you always seem to be helpful, polite, and knowledgeable. I think you should consider running. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: Belated answer, but, see § Awful joke (Topic: Adminship). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah; I must have not seen that! Well, I look forward to supporting your candidacy. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Some advice

Hi Tamzin

I wondered if you could help, im relatively new to wikipedia and appreciated your help in changing my name.

I am having an issue with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Kavanaugh, if I write anything remotely positive on this page it is removed by the editors throast and swift502 - they have deleted everything of the original page and highlighted every bad article ever written on this person and will not allow me to add anything to the page that is positive.

Is there a contact I can raise this with, I am not asking the removal of any credible articles on there part I just dont know how I can add anything in as they remove it.

Garen67541 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: If you feel that the page is unduly negative, the solution should be to remove that negative material, not to add equally unbalanced positive material. Now, I don't think I ever asked you if you have a conflict of interest with Kavanaugh, but from a few things you've said and done, I've assumed that you do. If you do, you should disclose this before continuing to edit about him. Regardless, I think the best step forward would be for you to raise your concerns on the talk page and request edits as needed, rather than adding or removing things yourself directly. For instance, Throast is right that what you added in this edit is too promotional in tone and has sourcing issues, but a sentence or several about people's parents is appropriate, and perhaps a less promotional, better-soruced version of the same content could be added. (Sidenote: Is one columnist's determination that he doesn't have a degree enough to put it in the encyclopedia's voice? Columnists aren't subject to standard editorial review, so I'm not sure—like actually not sure, not "just asking questions" not sure. But might be something to raise.) If, after trying to work things out, you feel that the talkpage is still skewing toward an unduly negative tone (emphasis unduly... sometimes the coverage of someone really does just slant negative and there's only so much we can do about that), you can post to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. And again, if you do have a conflict of interest, please disclose this. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: they have deleted everything of the original page: "We" have not. I'm getting tired of the antagonization. I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Information on his early life, his philanthropic endeavors and awards, all of which you would probably view as "positive" coverage, remain on the page because this information is verifiable. Information that was unverifiable (in most cases due to poor sourcing) was rightly removed. As Tamzin notes, if coverage slants "negative", this will unavoidably be reflected in the Wikipedia article (more on that thought: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing). Tamzin, regarding the UCLA degree, the claim by the columnist has been attributed in prose. Not a single reliable source I could find verifies that Kavanaugh actually graduated. They either claim he "attended" or "dropped out". I've added a New Yorker source to back up this claim. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you, yes I can confirm I do not have a conflict of interest.

Regarding the negative press im not disputing that, merely that I feel every piece I try to add you say the source is unreliable when they are well know respected publications.

And regarding his UCLA numerous articles I attached say the UCLA graduate, the article you posted only says I investigated, he didn't - it doesn't elaborate to say how he knows he didn't or what he investigated so I dont see how that is any evidence.

Garen67541 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: This sounds like something the two of you should discuss on the article's talkpage, same as any other content dispute on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've repeated this many times on the article talk but it seems the user simply does not want to understand. I've been brought up in this discussion so I've addressed it here. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If a person has a negative life, his article will have negative content. Wikipedia is not a place to glamour people and hide their bad works. Buræquete (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Collapsed for page scrollability, but with appreciation for the sentiment. — TZ
Tamzin, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Itcouldbepossible. I've removed a few gifs from your message and collapsed it; please take no offense, I just don't like having auto-playing media in my userspace, and also don't like it taking too long for people to scroll through my talk page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito

Thank you for your new edits on Mario Cerrito. I believe it now looks like a better page with your cleanup, removing some of the fluff - furthermore I wanted to reach out to you and tell you I am not trying to create any waves or harm. Summerlee44 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

RfD

Thanks for your !vote and thoughts on the OmniScriptum RfD. I wouldn't mind splitting the imprints and the authors into separate nominations (though with the caveat that there may be some that could be either), but I'm not sure how to split them into smaller groups – I could try to separate out the possibly-ambiguous ones, but that would still be a judgement call that wouldn't necessarily avoid "keep some, delete others" !votes. Do you have any specific thoughts on how they could be divided up? (Asking here to avoid clutter and potential confusion.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Well, some could be put in pretty big bundles, like the 10 "Just Fiction" variants. Others—I know this is a drag—it might be better to just nominate one at a time. But it's what 1234qwer1234qwer4 and I have done with redirects with extraneous quotation marks. It's what I have done with "<city> <sport> Team" redirects (which I need to get back to doing, actually). There's a benefit to the itemized/lightly-bundled approach, which is that if there's a clear consensus after a couple RfDs that redirects of a certain kind should be kept, then you can skip them as you go through the list. Sometimes RfD works on a bit of a common law model in that way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this – I've withdrawn the RfD and will take this into account when renominating. The first thing to do, though, will probably be to determine whether there's a consensus for the list and extensive table of imprints recently restored to the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the reminder about tagging redirects like Enthusiasts when manually adding them at RfD, guess I forgot that one! And your setindex at C12H18BrNO2 looks just fine. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hey Tamzin! I noticed you reverted my edit to Among Us. My apologies for not reading the citation, I had assumed you were basing it off of the bracket but I see that you were really basing it off the citation. Would it be alright if I removed the link since there currently is not an article for the Navy's esports team? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: No worries. We all make mistakes. As to the link: Per WP:REDLINK, such a link should be kept unless you think that the Navy team is non-notable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at a google search. It probably is notable. However I'd rather not work on creating a page for it right now. I'm planning on working on the draft for the new Kirby game that comes out if my undeletion request is fulfilled since I think that will become notable in due time (and I honestly prefer working on articles for video games). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: And it's perfectly fine to not work on it. But the beauty of redlinks is that they serve as a reminder to anyone reading the article that that's something we should have an article on but don't. So if not you who creates it, perhaps someone else will. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Understandable. I just don't like seeing redlinks in articles as it invokes the feeling of incompleteness (even though articles are never complete) and bothers me. However per WP:REDLINK I'll leave it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, not asking you to fulfill the undeletion quest but do you know how long it usually takes for an undeletion request to be fulfilled or denied? I'm doing my best to be patient although I see other undeletion requests below mine being fulfilled while I"m waiting for mine to be answered. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I'm not too familiar with REFUND, but your request appears to be the oldest pending one there that doesn't have a reply, so I doubt it will be too much longer. Maybe one of my admin talkpage watchers will take note of this and take a look. But it'll happen sooner or later, one way or another. We're all volunteers here, and all that jazz. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright thanks for letting me know. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: the feeling of incompleteness You are aware of WP:WIP? Most articles about logic topics give me heavy cringing, and I expect this situation will persist for years to come. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

RK777713 SPI

Hey, I don't know if the ping didn't go through or if you're just exhausted with the situation (which I would totally understand), but I've added yet another suspected sock to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713 if you'd like to take a look. I'm letting you know because I feel you're the only clerk who is already familiar with the relevant background. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: Indeed no ping. Pings have to be on new lines with a new signature (defined as whatever matches ~~~), so this didn't send one. See Help:Notifications and Help:Fixing failed pings. You can set Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo to notify you when a ping succeeds or fails. Anyways, thanks for letting me know; will look when I'm able to. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Supression of the truth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmy_Schneider&type=revision&diff=1067346318&oldid=1067333003

plus you leave the NOTFORUM comments of your friends. You are all total self-serving hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wavered on whether to remove CreecregofLife's initial reply, but decided it was (somewhat) relevant to the first message in the thread. The relationship between the terms "woman" and "trans woman", in a discussion of a trans woman's article, is a valid topic of discussion. If your response had been, "Trans women should be discussed as a separate concept from women in general", well, I would disagree with that, since it's inconsistent with our own articles Woman and Trans woman, which define trans women as a subset of women, but I don't think it would go against WP:NOTFORUM for you to say that. Your comments, however—and equally CreecregofLife's comments in response to you, which I've already spoken to them about—diverged deep into gender politics without any attempt to tie things back to the article, and thus I removed them.

For what it's worth, I've never interacted with CreecregofLife before that I can recall, and I'm not sure what gave you the idea that they and I are friends. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t even believe there was an article that both of us have edited recently enough to notice because I hadn’t even seen your name before this, so it’s an especially weird assumption. They’re sounding combative, like they think there’s a conspiracy against them. Coming up with any reason to keep up their biases, no matter how little logic--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Cree, thanks for proving my point. You're the one with the biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As I note at the top of this page and in an editnotice, I reserve the right to enforce strict civility norms on my talkpage. Please stop sniping at each other. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just making observation, not sniping.--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Same for me, as a note, he's the first one to accuse of bias. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:USS Southerland (DD-743), Talk:USS Vesole (DD-878) & Talk:USS Stickell (DD-888)

Hello, Tamzin,

When doing a page move, please leave behind a redirect if there are pages that redirect to the page being moved. Not doing so left some broken redirects in these cases. If you leave a redirect, then the helpful Wikipedia bots, like Xqbot, can change the redirect target, as they did with the article redirect page here, to point to the new page location. Or, before you do a move, you can always check to see if there are redirects to the page and change them manually yourself to point to the new page location if you don't want to leave a redirect. Broken redirects show up on the Broken redirect page which is updated every six hours. They can then either be corrected by an editor or admin or a bot will eventually delete them. But it can be simplest to deal with them when a page is bring moved rather than afterwards. The bots are pretty efficient at changing redirect targets after a move if a redirect is left behind to guide them.

Problems can be really bad when a popular page gets vandalized through a bad page move, the bots immediately move all of the redirects to point to the new, bad title, and when the bad move gets corrected, if a redirect isn't left, then all of the existing redirects are broken and can be deleted. Of course, that didn't happen here but I encourage page movers to leave a redirect behind after a move unless they are sure there aren't any existing redirects to the page being moved or unless they decide to correct the redirects themselves.

Thanks for all of the many areas where you help out! SPIs, RFDs, noticeboards, I seem to run into you at so many places on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Liz! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. These actually weren't suppressredirect moves in the standard sense, but rather pageswaps where one of the two articles didn't have have a talkpage. The pageswap tool doesn't handle those redirect creations automatically, and I was supposed to do it myself, but must have neglected to. Thanks. I'll get on that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

hi Aojconnor (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aojconnor: Hi! Anything I can help you with? Did you check out The Wikipedia Adventure yet like I suggested? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Xudun

Hi, I was wondering why the Xudun, Somalia page hasn't been moved to Xudun yet? I don't believe there are any issues that would prevent this move from happening. Thank you. Subayerboombastic (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Subayerboombastic: It's a bit of a complex situation, especially since there's two proposed targets, and I'm guessing some admins have looked at it, have been unsure of whether it should go to a full RM or not, and decided to leave it for someone else. We're all volunteers here, so it may take some time. If you would like to just start an RM now—just click the "discuss" link—that might be the better way forward. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: That makes sense. Alright, I'll do that. Thank you. Subayerboombastic (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I dont mind.

Thanks for the correction. Venkat TL (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We had a confirmation that two of the stable accounts were socking, NOT the two that seemed to be mistakenly conflated

Hi Tamzin, and pinging @Dreamy Jazz:,

I'm looking over this recent sock discussion here, and I think a mistake was made. People seem to be conflating two separate accounts here - different ones than the name change issue. The first two accounts that were tag-teaming disruptively on the article,

• Kimballofficial->Historynerd224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Historyisbuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

were confirmed by Dreamy Jazz / Checkuser to be the same user, running two accounts to disruptively edit the Nulhegan article. I was about to block them as socks, but was waiting to see if one of the checkusers brought in more evidence. Even if checkuser hadn't confirmed, their SPA, tag-team disruption on the Nulhegan and other Abenaki articles was clearly co-ordinated and, per WP:MEAT, they can be treated as a WP:SOCK drawer.

The later commentary that came in later, about Historynerd224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) being "the renamed Kimballofficial" seems to have led to people mistakenly conflating the wrong two accounts: Historynerd224 with Historyisbuff. But look at their contribs - they are different accounts. The namechange doesn't affect the Historyisbuff socking. We still have two accounts confirmed as a disruptive sockmaster. I'm still inclined to sock block those two. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I understand that Kimball/Historynerd is not the same account as Historyisbuff and is CU-confirmed to them. But CU confirmation doesn't necessarily mean that a blockable violation of WP:SOCK has occurred. My decision to close with a warning was based on the explanation that Historynerd gave on the SPI talkpage, which I copied to the "Comments by other users" section. They're claiming they created the Historyisbuff account separately for technical reasons and weren't trying to come across as two different people. That seemed plausible enough based on my reading of the composite timeline, and, per Dreamy, the CU evidence neither confirms nor denies that narrative, so I thought it made more sense to very cautiously AGF and let them off with a warning, with the understanding that they won't be given the benefit of the doubt if it happens again. Even if I didn't believe that, the standard close here would probably be a few days' block for the master, indef for the sock; and since blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and this warning seems to prevent future socking just as well as a block would, I didn't feel a block necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Tamzin's decision to close with a warning regarding the socking per AGF. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Tamzin - hope you are well. Thanks for your work at the Cambria Math SPI case - much appreciated. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Thanks! It was a funny thing... I just happen to have on my watchlist the two pages they decided to typo-fix, and was about to go give them the standard newbie lecture on being careful with that sort of thing, when I got the sense they reminded me of someone. Glad I went digging. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

SPA

Hi Tamzin. First of, thanks a lot for your efforts, much appreciated. I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'm not sure if I should file a CU request every time a new SPA pops up, when there is little evidence on its connection with CY. But the last time I filed a CU on Activisto (talk · contribs), even though there was not enough evidence at the time, that account eventually turned out to be a sock. Now there is a new account of Charlemagne768 (talk · contribs), who started an edit war in AA related article. Should I go ahead and ask for a CU, or it is better to wait for now? Grandmaster 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: In general, one shouldn't file an SPI just on the suspicion that an account is a "sock of someone"; I would probably decline a check in this case if you filed. If you're reasonably confident that this is CY or one of a few other sockmasters, it would be okay to file under one and say "this or one of the others"—this comes up a lot with caste-warring sox, who are often indistinguishable from one another without CU—but I don't see this as a clear match to the CY M.O. We can't just check every new account with a particular POV and file it under a sockmaster who happens to share this POV, after all.

Which isn't to say that this definitely isn't CY, just to say that I don't think I could endorse a check. Now, sometimes when a new account pops up that doesn't look new, a CU will just check them, as allowed by WP:NOTFISHING (the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry). However, there is intentionally no dedicated venue on-wiki to request such a check. A number of CUs watch this page, so perhaps one of them will be inclined to check the account. But if the account's first edits are to edit-war in a DS area, your better course of action might be just handling this through standard EW/DE/DS routes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. {{noping2}} to do the same thing as {{user}} but without pinging. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will take this into account. Have a nice day. Grandmaster 08:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Good morning Tamzin! (or afternoon, or evening, depending on your location) I wanted to send a quick thank you for the detailed, thorough explanation you gave to the SPI case I opened here. I was on the fence about submitting that case, but at the time it did seem suspicious and the timing was especially noteworthy. In the future, I'll be sure to take everything you mentioned into account before I submit those cases to SPI. I appreciate it again and I hope you have a great day! Spf121188 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: Thanks for your kind words. For what it's worth, there's a lot of cases I clerk that probably didn't need to be filed, and this wasn't one of them. It was a valid borderline call between socking and not. There's a fundamental tension at SPI between the encyclopedia's need to be free from disruption and editors' right to not be mistakenly blocked, and so in this case I went for the compromise that doesn't see anyone blocked but also doesn't vindicate anyone.

Where I get grumpy is when someone files an SPI because, say, over the course of a few weeks three accounts have added content to a politician's article pushing a common political POV. An SPI where the only evidence is shared POV is problematic, and sometimes can even be offensive. (Recently I request a case's deletion because it essentially boiled down to "All three editors are pro-India", which I took as a dog-whistle for "All three editors are Indian".) But in this case the compact timing of the edits distinguished it from the kinds of case I'm talking about.

While I have you, not sure if you saw my little clerk edit, but do be careful typing IPs out by hand. As it happens, the IP you mistyped is actually blocked as a webhost, and I was rather confused for a minute what was going on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

OH my... Looks I transposed some numbers on that, my apologies! Another thing I'll be very careful with moving forward :) Thank you again! Spf121188 (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

RMassist

Regarding {{RMassist}}, sorry for not getting the /subst. I knew about /subst, but have used them so rarely that I didn't think about it at the time. I actually did cut/paste from the previous one, but then removed the user part, as the time/date would be wrong, expecting it to add them back. Sorry, sorry, sorry! Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gah4: No worries! Happens. 99% of cases like this, fixing it would be as easy as someone else adding the subst: for you, but this happens to be a case where the subst'd templates output depends on details of the diff it was added in. If it makes you feel better, Here's me forgetting a subst in a TPE-protected template. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I remember when I first saw it, and noticed the subst:, and thinking about how rare that was, but then not thinking about it the second time. There are so many templates, like {{cn}}, that later on get changed, that I didn't think about how it works. I should remember next time, which I hope isn't soon. Gah4 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Requested off-wiki"?

Hi. I just noticed this summary. Who requested the move off-wiki (and I am wondering why when it's not something that needs to be)? Ss112 06:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) it seems fine to me, as it's the only EP on Wikipedia so far with the title "Devil". A bit weird for someone off-wiki to request a move, though wizzito | say hello! 06:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine with the move, in case that wasn't clear. I just wonder why somebody did this off-wiki. Ss112 06:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: The user who turned the redirect into an article asked in the unofficial anglophone Wikimedia community Discord if someone could make the move for them. I assume they did so just because it's faster than WP:RM/TR. As a matter of Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy, I'm generally willing to action any off-wiki request for a noncontroversial use of advanced permissions, but as a matter of transparency I note it in my edit/action summary if I do so, unless it's something really trivial like reverting blatant vandalism. Due to a rather absurd RfC consensus, I'm not allowed to give you a link to the brief public discussion, because that's somehow considered a "private" discussion even though anyone who verifies their email to Discord can join the server and see it... But I am allowed to tell you how to find it, so, if you would like to see the request, you're welcome to join the community server and search for can someone move. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, didn't even know Wikipedia had an (unofficial) Discord! Don't use Discord, but good to know in future I guess. Thanks. Ss112 07:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Social media in the fashion industry cleanup

Remember when we cleaned up this article? Yeah, another student revamped it and it doesn't look so good. wizzito | say hello! 01:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sadhbh O’Neill (politician)

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_5#Sadhbh_O’Neill_(politician), Sadhbh_O’Neill_(politician) should target the section 2022_Dublin_University_by-election#Candidates, where Sadhbh_O’Neill now correctly directly targets per the AfD, right? Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Thank you so much for catching that! So sorry about that.  Fixed. (I managed to also screw it up at Talk:Sadhbh O’Neill § Protected edit request on 12 February 2022, but RL0919 seems to have caught my mistake.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Great! I was confused by all the double redirects too (was it even a triple redirect?), as in my comment at the RfD, that you clarified with your close. Anyway, seems everything is in order now. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

One thing that may have added to the confusion, which I only noticed after closing, is that both redirects discussed are both curly-quote variants. Thankfully Sadhbh O'Neill was already targeted properly (also fixed by RL), and I created Sadhbh O'Neill (politician) to match the redirect that was under discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The thing you changed of mine

Dear,Mx tamzin

I am so sorry i wrote those things i am no longer going to edit anymore any way. Iam so sorry i disrupted everything and i don't really know how to edit so if i ruined youre page again i am so so very

sorry sincerely, 2603:8081:500:BA70:5DF9:DD05:ED28:D6DD (talk)

As long as you stop vandalizing, that's what matters. I'm glad to hear you won't do it anymore. If you're willing to contribute constructively, Wikipedia would love to have you. Just please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view first. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S., use ~~~~ at the end of your comments to sign. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)