User talk:Graham87/Archive 60

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Graham87. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

→

Snuggle page

Hello, I wanted to make you aware that Snuggle is a brand owned by both Unilever and Henkel. You seem to be undoing the update I have made. Please see the following sites:

https://thegoodcart.com/collections/snuggle-refills (the good cart is a D2C site owned by Unilever in Singapore) https://unileverkoreastore.com/en/collections/frontpage/products/%EC%8A%A4%EB%84%88%EA%B8%80-%EC%84%AC%EC%9C%A0%EC%9C%A0%EC%97%B0%EC%A0%9C-%EB%B8%94%EB%A3%A8%EC%8A%A4%ED%8C%8C%ED%81%B4-%ED%94%8C%EB%9F%AC%EC%8A%A4-1-8l-4%EB%B2%88%EB%93%A4 (Unilever Korea estore)

Also the category is called Fabric Conditioner globally, since the benefit has evolved from just offering softness in the early years... to fragrance, clothes protection, etc. Cpgfella (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

2601:580:C180:22D0:0:0:0:0/64 evading their block using 76.153.37.83

Hi there, I'm pretty sure that 76.153.37.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) belongs to the same person as 2601:580:C180:22D0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which you blocked for 1 year back in May. Their edits are all very similar to one another. In addition, 76.153.37.83 created Lizeth, Tsehay, and Georgine (given name) and the 2601:580 IPv6 range has edited 2 of those 3 pages shortly after they were created. 76.153.37.83 and 2601:580 also geolocate to the same exact area (Fort Lauderdale/Miami). Could you reset the 2601:580 block and also block 76.153.37.83 for the same duration? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F60:50F1:6D10:44FE:3F57 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Done. Graham87 01:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Gratitude

I am here for thank you for showing me the Teahouse my friend. I just checked it out now and it's a very interesting article for learn. I will definitely use it for the upcoming doubts.

Thanks again. You are the real deal man. Johnmarrys (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Totally deserved. Johnmarrys (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johnmarrys: Thanks very much! Graham87 14:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

National Music Museum

hey graham, i was watching again this article National Music Museum. i don’t think it meets the notability for stay on Wikipedia since it has no significant coverage. i suggest to delete it. what do you think? Enrico Manni (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Report. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Neuro-oncology

Maybe it's better now? Greeting Wname1 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wname1: Nope, it's not; see my response at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. For more help, please ask at WikiProject Medicine thread you started. Graham87 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

July music

The flowers are a bunch of yellow daisy-like flowers, against the dark-grey stony alpine ground where they grow. - Great music (in June, I'm behind: three great RMF concerts)! - Last Saturday, a friend played for us at her birthday party, on four instruments including baryton, with family (granddaughters!) and colleagues, from Renaissance to Haydn. - My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Today, I remember Reger's Requiem, and our choirs' jubilee 2 weeks ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow! I'd never heard that work before; it's extremely moving and the parallels between it and Brahms's Requiem are very interesting. It took me a while but I finally got the article to a form I'm happy with. Could you give me a good place to start with Schütz's work that's broadly similar to this? I know Bach's Passions but I don't think I've heard much if anything by Schütz. Graham87 08:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I think I've answered my own question with "Musikalische Exequien" ... this concert seems to be a good starting point, despite it's out-of-place (but not unpleasant) intro music. Graham87 08:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, also for finding something specific (which I don't know yet, just Selig sind die Toten). I'd have said that he was prolific, and most of it is good ;) - We focused on his works for one year, and you may want to check out those also. I sang Jauchzet dem Herren, alle Welt, SWV 36 (article comes with YT), often - delightful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

On today's Main page, you can find a cantata that Bach first performed 300 years ago, and an iconic saxophonist from East Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Today I remember Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival (pictured), - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Production on Track Record

Hi. Henry Lewy doesn't appear to be mentioned at all in the credits of the Track Record album; only Joan herself is listed as the producer for "Rosie". From a bit of research it seems that Lewy perhaps produced the other songs on the How Cruel EP, but not "Rosie". Geach (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Geach: OK, thanks, self-reverted. Graham87 16:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion IP

Hi, this IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/14.201.230.116 is an obvious block evasion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.208.234.7 see for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Denyce_Graves&action=history --FMSky (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky: Thanks, blocked. Graham87 11:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The Family article

Hello Graham, I'm just writing to let you know that I have made a second edit that you are free to critique or revert and to clarify why I wrote the place names the way I did. My aim is to make the article a little more accessible to all Anglophone readers, not just Australian ones, and to give some geographical context. If this is contrary to a Wikipedia policy I am unfamiliar with, I will cease. Please let me know. SebastianJFromTheBurg (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2023 (EST)

@SebastianJFromTheBurg: I'm going to undo that part of your edit to The Family (Australian New Age group) because <location, state name> is a US colloquialism vbased on the fact that so many places share names over there, which we just don't use here. I'd argue that Melbourne is much better known internationally than its state of Victoria, anyway. I guess the timeline is a bit weird and probably had to go (but "weird" is the understatement of the millennium to describe what went on in that group). Please sign your edits with four tildes like this ("~~~~") and ... you're well into daylight saving now! :-) Please also see the messages at your own talk page (not by me). Graham87 03:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I ended up not exactly reverting ... see how it is now ... but I'll probably have to head out soon. Graham87 03:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What was the first image on Wikipedia?

Hi Graham87, me and a friend were trying to find out what the first image uploaded to Wikipedia was, but I’m not sure where that might be recorded as I don’t think the logs of Lee Daniel Crocker’s first uploads are completely accurate. Given you knowledge of the history of the old days, would you know what file it is (or where to look at least)? Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: The oldest available log is at Wikipedia:Upload log archive/January–March 2002, which I've just revamped and used to update the relevant entries at Wikipedia:Wikipedia records. . I had no idea about User:(Automated conversion)! Before then, images used to be uploaded to Meta (example) but the logs there don't go back that far and I don't have access to any old database dumps that could help me there. Graham87 08:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, the original Meta upload log was right under my nose. Graham87 09:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks a ton. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Power trip ban. Thank you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Today I learned...

...that this was a thing. It was very sad to hear about Eaglish, truly - 70 is too young. I read your earlier comment to him though, and followed the link. A couple of thoughts struck me. First, is there a way to filter out the bots? It seems unfair to compare human editing streaks with bots. Second, does the pressure get to you? I'll admit to occasionally taking a peek at WP:NOE (I'm due to pop into the top 1,000 any day now...), but at least if I go a few days without editing I don't get bumped off the list... Girth Summit _(blether) 19:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Oh yes, very sad indeed. I don't think bots can be filtered out of that list. Keeping up my editing streak is usually pretty natural for me, unless I'm not at home but keeping up the article namespace streak wasn't as easy (also see my comments to the concept's creator). Graham87 03:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Minding the graves

Thank you for looking after the dead. It is a noble and necessary service. jp×g 02:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: Thanks for the kind words. Graham87 04:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! - the August image shows Goldenrod, a yellow flower that can cover field if you let it. - My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend with two weddings, so also like the spirit ;) - Pics to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You thanked me already! - Again not by me: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Now: picture of heart-shaped cake(s) uploaded. - Today's story is about a tenor, - why his roles are not linked on the Main page remains a mystery to me. Today is also the birthday of the Bayreuth Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One more day uploaded, with another wedding cake - I couldn't resist, imagine a pyramid of five round cakes, a load of sweetness, chocolate at the bottom. Today's story is about the Inkpot Madonna who returned to "her place" 9 years ago, and also has aspects of early learning, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is the anniversary of the premiere of Götterdämmerung. Berit Lindholm sang its final scene in concert at the Royal Festival Hall in London, only four years after her stage debut in a Mozart opera in Stockholm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Today's story is based on a 2011 DYK that would not pass 2023 reviewers, - they have to be of interest to the general public, which opera singers are not, so they say. Take Berit Lindholm, discussed here. - I added pics until a happy day with excellent food, but only dessert is pictured, with flowers that I found on the street to the restaurant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is Gwendolyn Killebrew's birthday, - pictured: a spider and sweet food, plum dumplings --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Swarthmore College

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Good article reassessment for Schubert's last sonatas

Schubert's last sonatas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

I typically spend all of my time writing about women and their works to address their under-representation in the historic record, but when I came across that mess on the Trujillos I couldn't let it go. (Especially because they are both also part of another under-represented group, Indigenous people.) Thank you so much for helping fix the problems, editing the little start I made and linking Michael to Clinton. I tried and hope I succeeded to fix all the incoming links, as well. (There were links to an athlete, not the son, and redirects to the son that should have been to the dad.) The talk page was really hard to figure out, but I managed after a couple of tries. Technology is not my thing, not even remotely. With your help, we managed to get a solid start class article on both the dad and the son. Hopefully someone can use other available sources to expand them now that the mix up is sorted. I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SusunW: No worries, oh what a tangled web we weave! I've done a bit more work on the Michael Trujillo article here and a bit of merging on Wikidata. I'm watchlisting it now. Graham87 15:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The Wikidata part didn't even occur to me. Thanks also to Gerda for hailing you for me. It truly takes a village on here sometimes to put an article together. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Psychedelic redirect target

Hi Graham87, I was thinking that psychedelic should probably redirect to psychedelic (disambiguation) rather than psychedelic drug, as while the word was originally coined to refer to a class of drugs nearly 70 years ago (and hence can be used as a noun to refer to one or more of those drugs), it has also been used as a verb to describe styles of music, art, clothing, as well as experiences for over 60 years, and is still in common use (in non-drug context), even in children's programming and movies, thus I feel it may be more appropriate to redirect to the disambiguation page. What do you think? Thoric (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thoric: Hmmm not sure, given all the links to that page. Not really my call though. Graham87 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87: Well, I'd be up for updating all the links to the appropriate specific targets. The page was historically the broad definition and/or disambiguation, and was only somewhat recently changed to be a redirect. --Thoric (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

IP mentioning your name

An IP seems to indicate that they're evading a block of yours here. Ring any bells? MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Thanks for the note. Dealing with it *sigh*. Graham87 02:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu: because you seemed to have had some interesting dealings with this user. I lightly skim-read AN/ANI every day (mostly just by reading headings) but managed to miss both of those ... Graham87 09:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

And also see this user talk page of theirs, where they mentioned me, along with this help desk thread (ditto). Graham87 09:45/10:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your InternetArchiveBot run appears to be stuck

Hai! InternetArchiveBot run #14723 (submitted by you) seems to be going very wonky - it says it's run through the full list of pages, but apparently hasn't realized that it needs to finish the job and release its bot worker for other use. Could you maybe try manually killing the job and see if that clears up the issue? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 03:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: I would, but I can't load the bot page on Toolforge ... it seems to be timing out/taking a while. Graham87 03:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Try again in a couple minutes; that's a somewhat-intermittent issue with that particular bot. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 03:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: Done. Graham87 04:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanx! :-) Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 04:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Help!

Hey! Graham87, could you please review my draft Draft:Kartoli. BrownCanary61 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@BrownCanary61: No, I don't review drafts. Asking random people like this is disruptive. Graham87 08:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Mark McDowell UPE

Hi. The week before you blocked यूनिकॉर्न चार्ज करना based on suspicious editing patterns. I've since come across Ants in text, whose contributions appear similarly rather suspicious. A new user making loads of minor edits to random articles, then a couple of article creations that didn't demonstrate any connection to an existing area of interest. Then they created Draft:Primal Digital Agency (recently draftified by Kuru), which is connected to Mark McDowell (entrepreneur) (deleted at AfD), which was created by the user you blocked. This seems to be another UPE sock farm. Are you or Kuru familiar with the editing pattern? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Thanks for the note; I've blocked that one too. I've encountered this sort of editing pattern before but usually they're not that good at their minor edits. I don't have a particular sockmaster in mind. Graham87 12:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: could you take a look to find out if you Can you see anything interesting with checkuser? Graham87 12:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look to see if that's warranted. Paul_012, this pattern is common for tons and tons of socks from various sock farms, and also for incidental spammers: you make a bunch of little edits (and many of these socks don't master English at a sufficient level: many of the sock farms are in South Asia and West Africa), wait a few days, and BOOM publish the article you were paid for. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM: "Several actions on the English Wikipedia (such as article creation) are restricted to user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits." Drmies (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

G87, if User:Syeda Noorz starts editing in the same way, block them. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep a proverbial eye on it ... Graham87 16:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Ha, ;) Drmies (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. I've been watching the "primal" links for the last month or so; there were a ton of socks that spammed that link over the last year: Wong-Wo0-Wo, Green tea with Sugar, Queeny Khaleesi, Ninanaritch, Tai Enosa, Q.Qiilinter. These are probably individual editors from the same firm, so more meat than sock. Not sure if that helps. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This rather curious user page

Incidentally (and probably unrelated), while trying to figure out what to do with the History of mass media of Thailand article that they created, I came across ILAnhisM, whose first user page version appears to be a pre-made template that includes the instruction, "Please remember that your user page should adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and not contain any promotional content or personal information that violates their policies." (Emphasis added.) Not quite sure what to make of that. Assuming good faith, it could be from some onboarding advice by someone recruiting editors for Wikipedia (might be a class or something?), but I'm finding it a bit strange that the exact text doesn't show up anywhere else, whether searching on Wikipedia or Google. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Hmmm, this edit is very GPT-like (I'd prefer not to say more publicly but trust me, I'm almost 100% certain) so their other edits may have also been AI-assisted. Graham87 13:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I was suspecting that a bit. I'm rather out of the loop regarding the community's position on such edits. Are there any quick updates that you could link to? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012: So am I; I've barely read Wikipedia:Large language models myself. Graham87 13:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Redact the edits made by my IP range

Hello. A year ago my IP range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:41:4300:7740::/64 was blocked due to vandalizing edits. I would like for all of them to be redacted. Thank you. 2601:41:4300:7740:15DA:ABEC:4D8C:A874 (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't do that. Blocked, once again by me. Graham87 06:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Tracy Chapman

I don't believe the citation verifying the claim that I citied is anywhere else on her page. Would you be able to add it somewhere, or at least show/tell me the appropriate area to put the citation?

Thank you. ParXivalRPT (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @ParXivalRPT: That citation is already present at the end of the 'career' section of the article. Once it's in the body of the article, we don't cite it in the lede. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ParXivalRPT (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks Chris. Graham87 05:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a content fork

None of the material about the org is covered in the other article. Leave it. Skyerise (talk) Skyerise (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Stop disrupting a requested move process. Why does this topic interest you so much? You're not even in Australia .... Graham87 12:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not disrupting anything. There was an article about building, which said it was about a building, which contained NO cited infomation about the organisation. I made a cited article about the organistion, which heretofore had not existed. Dump the move and make an RfC to merge it, if you want, but it is you who are edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's new material that I just spent over an hour creating. You don't have the right to edit-war it out of existence. I've got one more revert. You have none. Skyerise (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Any unblocked user has the right to make any edit they like. Also, the actual policy says *more* than three reverts, not three (but it does say that it's not a bright-line rule), so I'll leave it for now though and await other peoples' opinions. You also haven't answered the question in my first message above. Graham87 12:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And I don't have to answer your question. And since it is new material that you are deleting, you will always be one revert ahead of me and I will report you at four. Skyerise (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fremantle Arts Centre. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skyerise (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you justify your block of this user?

Hello Graham. I notice that User:The Traveling Scholar has been given an indefinite block by you and had nearly all their contributions reverted. A few things concern me: 1) I don't see any sign of the user getting any warning of your objections prior to this block. 2) Looking at the user's contributions, I don't see anything disruptive; some minor improvements to articles and some small changes that are debatable. Introducing an Oxford Comma to an article is something that people might reasonably debate about, but it is not disruption. Arguably some of the user's wikilinking is excessive, but we don't ban contributors for that. 3) You make no attempt to justify your reverts, using a standard edit summary that says you are reverting because the user is disruptive. Some of your reverts introduce grammatical or other errors into the text, for instance where you changed "various Russian explorers" into "various Russians explorers". Please clarify why you labelled this user as disruptive and why you took such an extreme measure against them rather than any of the alternatives. I apologise if there's something about this user or this process that I'm missing. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: Making minor and semi-automated edits like this is a modus operandi of paid editors trying to gain legitimacy (see the section above, where I let the editor go to see what they'd do because their copyedits weren't *that* bad). Graham87 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with MartinPulter. In addition, "gaining legitimacy" sounds a bit arbitrary to block someone out of the blue. Although there is a new notice by User:Drmies in the blocked user talk page that it may be a multiple accounts issue. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Well we don't have the time or resources to chase after high-volume semi-automated semi-competent editing, especially since we're not allowed to have user watchlists. I usually let editors like this go if I think there's a *reasonable* chance that they're legitimate and a high enough percentage of their edits (from a quick sampling) are beneficial. Graham87 08:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Although the block seems to be justified on the grounds of suckpuppetry, I have to say that many editors run bots and it is allowed in Wikipedia. I still don't understand where your rationale comes from about "semi-automated" edits— it is unclear if they were even semi-automated. Even though none of my edits are automated, some may be in some interpretation be considered "semi-automated" because I use Wikipedia:HotCat. And there is plenty of disagreements by editors regarding editing, therefore "semi-competent" editing is a subjective term. I mean I still don't understand why you reverted the capitalization of German Army (a German army is semantically different than the German Army, and in the latter it should be capitalized as a proper name per style guides and the German Army article itself).

The crux of the matter would be whether the edits were really automated or not, per WP:BOTUSE, " The operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in ways outside their approved conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator."

If the edits were not automated, the user deserved at least some sort of warning if some concerns were found.

I emphasize that I continued this discussion not because of the individual user as it has been found with suck puppetry, but rather as the initial case applicable to other editors.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Thinker78, the edits were not automated, as far as I can tell, but they were of the pattern that we see all the time from UPE/COI editors--and Graham's assessment was in fact correct, as I confirmed with my magical tool. That's really all there is to it. If you wish to advocate for the editor, that's fine, but I suggest you that in cooperation with the editor. Oh, the block may, to you, just seem to be justified via sockpuppetry, but I assure you that it's more than "seeming" from my point of view. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies I am not advocating for the individual editor but I am simply trying to figure out the genesis of this block. I have worked on many COI requests and I am familiar with the guidance. I still don't understand what COI editing has to do with getting a block in this case because Wikipedia guidance doesn't even prohibits COI editors from making edits but rather strongly discourages from editing affected articles directly and require that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78: My revert was part of a mass-rollback of this user's edits, which is fairly standard for disruptive users like this. By semi-automated editing I meant that they may well have used tools like Grammarly or spell-checkers to make their high-volume edits like this. Most newcomers start off editing relatively slowly (as we both did). Conflict of interest editing is one thing; disrupting the encyclopedia while making edits to puff up one's edit count (as this user and many others before them have done) is quite another. Graham87 05:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78:, I can't speak for Graham. What I saw, which led me to use Checkuser, is the same pattern I (and no doubt Graham) have seen dozens if not hundreds of times: a set of edits that mean nothing at all and are done in a mechanical, semi-automated fashion, and usually aren't even correct, followed by a brief waiting period to get autoconfirmed and/or gain credibility; the next step is that promotional articles are created, NEVER with any notification of any conflict of interest. Really, we're not even talking about COI editing: we're talking about UPE. Checkuser confirmed that this account is part of a set of accounts that all work in the same way, and there's a few geographical areas that have very high incidences of this kind of spamming. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand about blocking for sockpuppetry or other violations but I express my concerns about blocking people in a preemptive fashion in general not just about any specific case if they haven't run afoul of Wikipedia's policies. I also appreciate the time and professionalism in responding to my concerns. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Am I right that Chibogsilonian is another sock of Datu Hulyo and is there any other interesting activity? Same types of edits, same types of topics. Graham87 06:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing, Graham. I threw in User:Rei37 and User:WorldExplorer48, for free. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Fremantle Arts Centre

An editor has requested that Fremantle Arts Centre (organisation) be moved to Fremantle Arts Centre, which may be of interest to you. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Skyerise (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Joni Mitchell

Thanks for adding, yesterday, the link to that article in L.A. Times, 5 Sept 2004. I haven't yet had time to read it but will do so in time. (I mean to say: Miss Mitchell is a fascinating artist, musician, to me. Did you know, that here in the Netherlands, we had a special commemoration item on the public national television in 2021, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of her album Blue?) -- Corriebertus (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: No worries, it's a good read. Graham87 07:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: Wow re the Netherlands anniversary thing! Graham87 07:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you missspell something, there? : "re"...? --Corriebertus (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) No -- you probably mean: "reacting on the anniv. thing." Thanks! --Corriebertus (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: "re" is an abbreviation of "reply". Graham87 07:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 'reaction', 'reply', is more or less he same (thanks for the wow, again); it just took two minutes for me to understand that abbreviation. I'm much older than you (presumably), I sometimes don't quickly understand such internet language. By the way, where are you from, USA, Canada, elsewhere? --Corriebertus (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: I'm from Western Australia ... see my user page. Graham87 08:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks. I now have to start heeding and minding my chores and jobs for today. Take care! --Corriebertus (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I always thought that "re" was short for "regarding", as in "re your communication of 31 August, we have pleasure in accepting your offer". However, Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required) offers "about" or "concerning", which are similar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Wow, you learn something every day ... I think I always assumed it was short for "reply" because of email programs but even Wiktionary says it's a Latin word (it's too late at night for me to feel up to using my Wikipedia Library access to get to your above link). Graham87 19:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm totally puzzled (and disappointed) by your revert, yesterday, on page Joni Mitchell. You removed that ref source that I had found, with a (clear, sensible, serious, etc.) comment about her album Court and Spark. Mind you: the WHOLE three paragraphs about album Court and Spark in the artcile are currently UNSOURCED! I don't assume it writes any rubbish though, but ofcourse it is always a bit eery to have (or allow, or tolerate) articles in Wikipedia, or sections, or large swaths of text, that go unsourced. And then I happened to stumble upon that apparently totally decent, civilised, ref source, saying more or less what our article also writes (but anonymously!). It seems then to me totally at odds with Wikipedia philosophy, guidelines, etc., to NOT add such a (decent etc.) ref source to the article. Why do you despise that (seemingly totally serious) discussion of Mitchell's career as "off-hand"? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: Every source has its place. The main subject of that Herald Scotland article is the book it's reviewing, not her music, let alone Court and Spark, which anyway is only mentioned because it shares a title with a painting she made. I also have good reason to suspect the article got at least some of its background information from Wikipedia itself (see my previous comment) and the policy section about circular referencing. As a general rule, when trying to source a fact added to Wikipedia, I basically ignore any sources that I know were written after the text was added here (unless I have a particularly good reason to trust them). I'm not so concerned about a bit of unsourced text in a Wikipedia article with such a long history as the Joni Mitchell page, but adding random tangentially relevant sources doesn't really help. Graham87 11:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation is clearer, now (‘circular referencing’). But your disdaining “random tangentially relevant” and “off-hand” seem sort-of overdone, overblown, exaggerated to me. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your user name

Okay, I'm moving this here. It would be nice if you used a normal signature line that didn't get mistaken for me. Graham (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graham: OK, done. For the benefit of talk page watchers (and my own notes), this is a continuation of a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page importation#Your user name; also see User talk:Graham#Talk:Bootcamp. I hope this reduces confusion; I'm not sure it would have eliminated in the former case but it should definitely reduce mistaken identity cases. Graham87 (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

September music

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary of Clara and Robert Schumann, but I was too late with our gift. The pictured flowers are a few delicate autumn crocusses, with water droplets -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. - Latest pics from a weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

My story today is The Company of Heaven ("company" with a double meaning, but angelic company in the end). - It's a week with concert or opera almost every night! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Grahamd87

A new account, Grahamd87, has been blocked. Anyone who accuses you of vandalism may be confusing you with that account. Certes (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Certes: Thnaks for the note ... it takes all sorts! Graham87 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I only just read the relevant AN discussion ... just wow! Graham87 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Graham87. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Netball

Netball has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unban

We don’t know why but you baned our school from edditing and creating Wikipedia related things. We would like to be unbaned so we can create a page for our teacher Again we don't know why we were banned Lucysmith23 (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The group has vs. the group have

~~Are you sure that this edit is correct? Or, "more correct"?~~ The Cambridge Dictionay shows both versions in their examples:

An unknown terrorist group has claimed responsibility for this morning's bomb attack.

The group have just signed with a new record label.

...is what I was about to write. But, reading the dictionary page more closely I now see that it's "has" for things that are considered a "unit" and "have" for "a number of people". So, thanks for that edit, I learned something new today! :-) -- Evilninja (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Evilninja: Indeed. Also see American and British English grammatical differences § Subject–verb agreement. Graham87 (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

SpartanInTroy

Hi Graham. I thank you for reverting a bunch of changes from this editor - there were a few on my watchlist that had me thinking "Hmm, I'm not sure that was a change for the better". That said, it feels a bit extreme to indef the editor over something like this. Especially considering that I didn't see any prior warnings or anything. I wanted to check with you and see if there was more to the story that I wasn't getting. Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No worries re the reversions. Re the indefblock, see this section above about similar cases; it's almost certainly an undisclosed paid editor trying to pad their edit count. Also, some of their mass-edits were really, really bad. Graham87 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Yeah, I see what you mean now. The ones on my watchlist just looked like needless tinkering - the type that I (sadly) see all the time - but searching through the other edits, there's a ton that simply don't make any logical sense for anyone to make. I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks for clarifying. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Graham, why am I blocked?

Hi, Graham I suddenly discover that I am blocked and I have not the slightest idea why. I am quite new to Wikipedia editing however I see that I appear to be marked as some species of history vandal. Could you help me? If this was your doing could you point to where the alleged vandalism occurred? I am not happy about the situation and will certainly seek advice and help, but I would like to put it to you first. Thanks very much Gunnar945 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gunnar945: You were probably caught up in a very wide rangeblock I performed. All you need to do is log in, which you've done; if you were completely blocked, you wouldn't have been able to post to this page. Graham87 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Graham, appreciated Gunnar945 (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)