User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 30

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

Wikipedia talk:Project namespace

Hi Tony, there's been some recurrent vandalism at Wikipedia talk:Project namespace from multiple accounts and I requested page protection at WP:RfPP. They don't look like the same people, but if a hard block or range block could resolve this without adding page protection to talk page that would be better. Could you advise on whether a block would resolve this better than page protection? Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes, another CheckUser has already looked at the account in question. If there would have been a range block that was possible, they probably would have done it already. Thanks for letting me know though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey Tony, can you kindly check user: Jach19 as user is creating lots of edit wars and is most probably sock-puppet of CBG17. Thank you for your time. Wappy2008 (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Flyer1243 (talk · contribs · count). Blocked and tagged. One less thing for you to do when you "get in", Tony.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your behavior towards me

You may not know it, but when you performed this rollback on my talk page, you also removed a comment I posted in response to User:Sasquatch in the process. I've reposted it here for you:

I'm just feeling frustrated that no one is unblocking me. I put a lot of effort into my well-worded request, but what I'm essentially getting is a slap in the face for all that effort. This isn't fair; I might as well have not posted any request to begin with. :(

You really should have taken a close look at this comment before ruthlessly revoking my TPA and extending my block the way you did. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You were still edit warring on your talk page over an edit warring block. You'd been warned. You were told how to appeal, and you didn't. These were all your choices, not mine. Your block has expired. Just move forward and don't edit war again :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
It was your choice to make my block more harsh and severe. What do you think would have happened if you hadn't done that, but instead had accepted the unblock request which I reverted from declined status and had compassionately unblocked me? MarcelTheHippie (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You had been warned not to edit war on your unblock requests, or the block may be reset without TPA. You chose to ignore that advice and continued edit warring on your unblock requests. I'm not really not sure what you expected to happen when you reverted from declined status after you'd been told to stop it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You blocked me too early. It would have been better for you to wait for one more revert before doing what you did. I personally think you came close to abusing your admin privileges. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I disagree with you. I can't really do anything now: your block is over. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You'd better agree or I will report you to WP:ANI. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
For what? I told you how to have my action reviewed. You were blocked for edit warring and were edit warring on your talk page to undo declines. There really wasn't much else that could have been done. You can report me if you want, I never mind my actions being reviewed by others, but the block has expired so I'm not really sure why you want to have it reviewed now rather than via WP:UTRS when you were actually blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Surely you understand how upsetting it feels when a request that someone put a lot of time and effort into gets declined for the most ridiculous of reasons. Furthermore, the aggressive actions you took against me weren't the only way to end the edit war. I insist you answer the following question honestly: What do you think I would have done if you had accepted my restored unblock request and unblocked me? MarcelTheHippie (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) MarcelTheHippie, what do you hope to accomplish here? You were blocked for edit warring, and you continued edit-warring on your own talk page even after three different administrators told you to stop. After your block expired you reverted again; you're fortunate none of the admins watching your talk page noticed or you would very likely be blocked indefinitely. Yes, Sasquatch's decline rationale was absolutely bogus, and had I come across it at the time I would have unblocked you, but none of that is an acceptable reason to edit war, and there isn't anything anybody can do about any of it now. Please walk away from this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think I would have been re-blocked? I blanked my talk page immediately afterwards. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I agree my unblock declined reasons were lacking in this instance. I should have better communicated that after reviewing MarcelTheHippie's conduct, I felt the temporary block was both reasonable and justified in this instance to prevent further disruption. I will certainly do better in the future in communicating what I considered. To MarcelTheHippie, I apologize that my curtness caused you to be frustrated. I hope we can all move on from this. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My username is bad?

Hi, recently I had a warning in Arabic Wikipedia that my name violates the username policy which I wasn't aware of. They say that my name is the name of this district Shara'b As Salam District. It looks like it but it can be a name of someone. Now, I have requested a name change and I am not sure if it's gonna be a good name or a bad name and I am not sure whether the community in the Arabic Wikipedia would accept my request or not because I had an issue with them in meta Wikimedia and I had changed my name 4 months ago therefore I feel that would be the excuse to reject my username. Can you help me and change my username (if it's a good username) to Yemeni Sharabi. I have few days before I get blocked due to my current username. Usernames are like my least interests in Wikipedia. I wouldn't care less about my username and I don't want to get blocked for this issue. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi SharabSalam, I am not familiar with the username policies of the Arabic Wikipedia, but I can change your username if you want. Dr-Taher could you let me know if Yemeni Sharabi is an acceptable username on ar.wiki? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
So we don't have the same policies in all projects? I thought it's like a global policy and that if my name violates the policy I get blocked globally. "Yemeni Sharabi" is English and it means someone from Yemen and Shara'b.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Every project has its own username policies. While I am fairly familiar with ar.wiki compared to most en.wiki sysops because of my work with cross-wiki sockpuppets as a CheckUser, I’m don’t know their username policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
So when I get blocked for violating username policy I don't get blocked globally? I just want to make sure.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
That is correct. There is no global username policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Arabic Wikipedia has a specific policy against place-names as usernames, but we have no such policy here. For political and religious reasons, and the need to ensure editors don't infringe against the extremely varied laws of the Arabic-speaking countries, Arabic Wikipedia's rules on usernames are much, much stricter than those here. ‑ Iridescent 06:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Aha. I thought I'm gonna get globally blocked. That doesn't sound bad. I don't edit in Arabic Wikipedia anyway. Thanks for explaining Iridescent. Thanks TonyBallioni.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • TonyBallioni, I don't want to change my username just to be able to edit in Arabic Wikipedia. I really like my current username. So I will strike my request above.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello TonyBallioni, the username "Yemeni Sharabi" is accepted on ArWiki. But the user should be aware that, if he change his username now, he will not be allowed to change it again before 25 Feb 2020, because he changed his username on 25 Feb 2019. Thanks. --Dr-Taher (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Puebla capital listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Puebla capital. Since you had some involvement with the Puebla capital redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User Nolimetangere777

Hello TonyBallioni, can you please take a look at user Vkostenk who repeated the same edit as Nolimetangere777 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) that you blocked a few days back. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi GSS, they appear Red X Unrelated technically. MER-C may be interested in it on behaviour. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Blocked as meat. I wouldn't be suprized this was some outsourced spamming agency. MER-C 09:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Fwiw, I think most UPE is white label these days, which is part of the reason CU isn’t as useful on it as it used to be a few years ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
True, and I have seen such cases on Freelancer.com. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, UDP cases run silent and deep. It increasingly seems to be companies hiring marketing firms, hiring wiki-editing services, hiring freelancers. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Having seen enough of the technical backend of it, while I do believe there are still Orangemoody-esque organizations out there of coordinated paid editing, my gut is that the majority of paid editing today is not done by massive farms but by freelancers either bidding directly or being contracted out by major firms. We've gotten much better at blocking open proxies, and while unblocked ones still exist, most freelancers (and indeed, most people) aren't technically savvy enough to use them effectively.
I'm a big believer in Ockham's razor, and the easiest explanation for this technical stuff is that most UPE socks aren't connected beyond the ones they make themselves. There's no reason that an editor on a legitimate ISP on one continent would be the same person on a legitimate ISP on another. People have realized someone in North America can charge $100 for an article and pay someone in South Asia $25 to write it and pocket the rest (or in the more sophisticated cases, charge thousands and pay hundreds.)
It's a good business move, and I do think there are some firms that run very deep, but I think what we're seeing on-wiki now is a shift away from the massive farms and more towards individuals trying to make a buck in the gig economy and the marketing firms using them for something with a good profit margin that they don't have to pay their real staff to write. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock of blocked user Cardicharts

Hey Tony. Even though I tagged you in my summary adding the latest IP (79.45.15.40) the blocked user Cardicharts is using to a page Ad Orientem set up, User:Ad Orientem/LTA Cardicharts, they are definitely the same user (even using the same 79. IP range they have used previously). All the same hallmarks listed there. They have edited Cardi B topics, Ava Max topics, added a bunch of charts to different articles, and extensively edited various "List of awards and nominations received by x" articles. Not even sure a CheckUser would be needed for this one. Thanks. Ss112 13:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for two weeks based on behaviour. CheckUser cannot be used to tie accounts to IPs, and I did not look. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Tony, they're already back using 80.183.1.5. Same chart edits, editing Cardi B topics as well. Ss112 00:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot 2

You may be want to handle these two pages created by a user you have blocked.--GZWDer (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't really see a reason to delete them, but xaosflux might want to look at them? I do my best to stay away from anything touching bots. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted them as housekeeping (those requests were never presented for review). — xaosflux Talk 22:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

North Carolina IPs

After the mention of the fb90 range at AN, I noticed that aviation articles are quite popular amongst North Carolina IP editors. Since you did the fb90 rangeblock, you may wish to take a look at 98.121.180.127 and 70.63.95.98. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That range is pretty massive and the target is an LTA. If the other IPs are acting disruptively, they’ll be blocked shortly. Thanks for letting me know, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What's ACC ignore?

Hi. Please do not block me for sockpuppetry, but I have been forced to use my laptop after my phone's IP range was blocked for a year. You have blocked me, but it says that the block is because of ACC ignore. What does this mean? Can you tell me what any blocking reason means (except for LTA socking)? Thank you. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:D434:82D3:C07E:F052 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's an internal term that has nothing to do with your block. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The /32 in question is one of the most problematic ranges on the English Wikipedia. It has been consistently blocked for the last 2.25 years for all but around 24 hours. The block expired roughly 4 days ago, and the problems returned. I restored the block to the setting that it was last at for one year, which given that it's basically been blocked since April 2017 is pretty conservative. The solution to any problems you may have is to create an account on another ISP you have access to. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You commented here again so I'll explain: the hidden comment "ACC ignore" is a code that admins can add to rangeblocks to mean if a user requests an account from that range, it doesn't require a CheckUser to review the request in WP:ACC. The range you were editing on is one of the most, if not the most, disruptive ranges on en.wiki. It takes a lot for a /32 range of a major mobile provider to be blocked longer than a few hours. I promise you it is justified in this case. This is the complete block log for anyone following at home. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Cirt

Hii, can you please remove special rights of Cirt. Redundant rights, user won't be needing them again. Thanks, Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't normally remove permissions from accounts, but if another admin wants to, I have no objection. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 17:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hello, Tony,

I'm unclear why you deleted Category:Italian actors in gay pornographic films and Category:Sport in Moengo. I had just tagged them CSD C1 a few minutes ago. Empty categories are placed in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for 7 days. Sometimes, they have been emptied out of process and the categories end up not being empty a few days later. So, we remove the CSD tag. Sometimes an editor goes on a run, creating lots of categories that they haven't populated. The CSD C1 note gives them a nudge to know that, aside from a few exceptions, Wikipedia does not maintain empty categories. So, they make use of them and start assigning articles/pages to these categories before that week is over.

If categories are still empty after 7 days, then they are deleted. There is a faulty bot that is supposed to move empty categories from Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories after 7 days but sometimes it takes a little longer to move them over because the bot is wonky. Sometimes I check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and delete the categories that have been there for at least 7 days. But empty categories are only deleted immediately after they are tagged if they are dated maintenance categories like Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 19 July 2019 that are deleted for housekeeping reasons. Let me know if you have any questions about this little niche of CSD tagging. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Liz! Sorry, I'm not very familiar with category CSDs. I delete any talk page notification if it looks to meet the criteria when it pops up on my watchlist, which is how I saw those. I saw it was empty and had the banner, and apparently didn't read far enough into the fine print. If you want to restore them, feel free to. I think it may be useful to adjust the "not really CSD" tags to have a timer on them like the PROD tags. I think there are some template CSDs that are really just sticky PRODs too. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, Tony, I think there are only 4 or 5 editors, along with me, who deal with empty categories so I'm not surprised you're not aware. It's not typical for a CSD tagged page. I have proposed a new wording for the Twinkle alert tag because it is very misleading and editors panic because they think they will be immediately deleted. I should follow up on that this weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest moving it and any other "7 day CSDs" to be sticky PRODs like BLPPROD, since that's what they appear to be to me, but this also isn't an area I have particularly strong opinions on. Just thoughts from an outside party who messed up while trying to be helpful :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Some IP has filed

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, BMK, he let me know. I just reverted him. He's been PMing me on IRC tonight telling me how he's not going to donate to the WMF anymore or read our articles to increase our page views. A real cutie.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
OMG, what're we going to do without that money? We won't be able to pay our editors and admins!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You guys are getting paid? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Always get paid late though, just got my WikiBucks for June in the mail. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

I saw your edit over at Katherine's talkpage. Would you be so kind to explain to me what (helped) change your mind? Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 02:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rong Qiqi, a few things. One, I actually think the board statement was really well put together, and that in non-profit speak, it was about as close to you come as The staff was wrong and we're telling them to fix it. I'm sure Katherine is going to do her best to help implement that, and I think that is a good thing. Second, from everything I've been told, she actually is the most qualified person to be running the WMF right now, and as someone who is very much pro-the-Wikimedia movement, I want a foundation that is in the strongest position to support our aims. There may be rough patches between community-foundation relations, but we should be trying to promote a cohesive movement, and that means doing our best to find common-ground as a community with the foundation.
Finally, I said staff transitions may be something that may need to happen still. I think it's the elephant in the room, but it does need to be mentioned. This was a bad moment in community-foundation relations, and it is an obvious question that needs to be thought through. At the same time, sensitive HR matters are not best discussed with angry community members, and are best discussed internally and by the staff. Katherine (WMF) has done a pretty good job post-Tweet if you will, and I trust her to think these things through right now without screaming from you, me, or anyone else. She was a communications person before this, she get's what is at stake. Let's give her room to work. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have to think about this. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 03:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, I have decided to drop this because of the way I've been treated by other people. I do think we are still in an emergency, but I probably have to trust you when you wrote: "she actually is the most qualified person to be running the WMF right now" (which is slightly depressing imho). Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 03:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For authoring User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 and for, generally, making the technical facets of Wikipedia accessible to us non-experts! El_C 07:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, the balance of the factors are important

Hey, Tony. Like you, I too, wish Flo to be given the mop again. However, this nomination seems to be an important one for the future of Wikipedia. I don't think Flo must evade, or in this case, be made to avoid, tough questions. Like this. I am sure Flo has an excellent explanation. Perhaps we can give the IP editor the benefit of the doubt, they might have good reason for wanting to remain anonymous. Our policy is AGF not AGB. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Our policy is No open proxies and no evasion of scrutiny. That IP address belonged to an open proxy. Even ignoring the fact that is was obvious evasion of scrutiny under the socking policy, the range should have been blocked to begin with, and I'll be following up to make sure SQLBot is searching that ASN going forward.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Whoa! "Evasion of scrutiny" sounds a like lot a movie I watched about Edward Snowden. Alright, you're the boss; do as you see fit. But I didn't understand the part about SQLBot or ASN, in case they were important. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a foreign country, TheSmartOne2019, they do things different there  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have collards in the Kingdom, dear integer? They are perhaps the most delicious and yet confusing thing about this native land of mine. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing more advanced than cabbage I'm afraid TB  :) To clarify, I was not making xenophobic remarks about your country—apologies if I sounded otherwise—but that Technoland is a country many of us, myself included, will never reach let alone understand  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Heh, I make fun of my country all the time. No xenophobia read in that :D You really should try collards if you get a chance. Great on New Years. Drmies can give you his opinion on them I'm sure.
And yes, technoland is confusing even for those of us who pretend we know stuff sometimes. SQLBot runs a script that searches a set of autonomous systems numbers (ASNs) for VPNs/open proxies/webhosts, and creates a list for admins to review and block. The IP that was very likely someone logged out socking was on one of the ASNs SQLBot is supposed to be searching, which is why I'm going to be following up about it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Which country is that, sir? You claim dual citizenship on your user page, so per Trump you should fuck off from both if you're complaining. I have an opinion on collards: just no. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tony: Well, thanks for the explanation. I think I have a good handle on what you said, although seems to me you used "socking" incorrectly. (Not judging though.) I actually do have a computing background, but I am no Cisco engineer. I had heard of autonomous systems, but in passing. I think it replaced a protocol called RIP that went RIP. (Oh, the irony.)
Maybe the only reason I was interested in that question was because of the name "FleetCommand". I used to know him. The guy used to contribute to Windows and computer articles. Wrote a whole MOS! Oh, well. Right now, I am reading the names of the admins who just up and left. Know a lot of them. DoRD, MSGJ, etc. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No, logged out editing in project space is socking. Also, what is your original account, TheSmartOne2019? You can disclose it to me via email if you prefer, or the arbitration committee, but policy is pretty clear that Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project and you've just basically admitted to this being a second account. This is also my second account, but I've disclosed to ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it. I've commented there. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Prusia

I think one of these can be deleted. Thank you, Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 14:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1839_establishments_in_Prusia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1839_establishments_in_Prussia

Thanks. Liz, would you mind looking at the obvious typo here? My last misadventures in category CSD has me cautious! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq

Thanks for nominating. We need more people like him. CassiantoTalk 16:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

/64

Thank you for creating WP:/64. Have you considered posting it at WP:AN? --MrClog (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s a fairly simplified description, and I’d prefer to leave it as an essay that gets around by word of mouth now. On the off chance a bunch of people start hard blocking the AT&T /64 in SoCal based on it, I’ll want to tweak the wording. It’s garnered enough attention in the last 24 hours that hopefully word will get around and people will start making more appropriate blocks for individuals editing on IPv6. Basically it’s a non-technical guide to a common range block most admins should feel comfortable making, and I don’t want it to seem any more authoritative than an essay that is linked from the IP blocks page right now and a shortcut that people can use as an explanation if needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Useful essay. Too many admins are not comfortable making /64 range blocks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, feel free to spread it around on user talk pages or link to it when it may be useful :) For anyone who is interested in religious history, at one point there were two admonitions in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. One admonishes people who are overly lax on reception of Holy Communion to be aware their sins and not receive unworthily. The other is for use in an overly scrupulous parish and admonishes people not to hold back from reception of communion out of fear.
IMO, right now we're in the latter situation where admins tend to be overly conservative on blocking /64s, and so I wrote the essay to encourage being more liberal. There are times where it won't apply perfectly, but right now we are so far in one direction that the admonishment to be more liberal is need ​ TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I've had to explain this to people multiple times, so will definitely start to spread it to admins in need of guidance. My only issue with the essay is that I hadn't thought to make it before :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Asking for opinion about RfA

Hi, I'd like to create and edit a few pages about companies in India and Japan (I have lived in both countries and work for companies in both countries as well). But it requires administrator permission level. Can you check my user account (contributions and edit history) and give me feedback whether I'd pass the RfA test/process?

I contacted you because I saw your name in the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_an_RfA_nomination

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship

ThanksCompfreak7 (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Compfreak7 Requesting adminship on the basis that you want to write articles that "require admin level access" and for which you have a COI is a very bad idea. No articles require anyone to be an admin but protected titles require admin creation - something no user would be granted just on the basis that they want to override said protection. Can you clarify what companies you're talking about? Praxidicae (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

>> So far i have no edits to make that require admin privileges, so i think there is no case of "conflict of interest", if that's what you meant by COI. I am currently stuck at creating a page for Swiggy, which is a online food ordering app serving major cities of India : Bangalore, Hyderabad, Delhi, Gurgaon, Nagpur, Jaipur, Coimbatore, Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Visakhapatnam, Lucknow, Noida, Mumbai, Pune, Indore, Kochi, Kolkata and Chennai and lot more (check list near footer of homepage).

Website: https://www.swiggy.com/ Craft: https://craft.co/swiggy/ Crunchbase: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/swiggy

News Articles: 1. https://www.livemint.com/Companies/NsVFwJMvONZm8qEDJuGoOM/How-Swiggy-became-Indias-fastest-unicorn.html 2. https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/11/swiggy-store/

I visited this page -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiggy it says, "This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it."

Please help me, create it. Thanks, Compfreak7 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You should talk to the admin who protected that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

>>>> Thanks TonyBallioni, I created a new section on the talk page of the user who protected the page, linked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Need_Help_creating_a_page_protected_by_you Compfreak7 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Elisa.rolle

Hello, and good afternoon (where I live). I’ve been upset about some dialog you have had with User:Elisa.rolle & would like your opinion.

I have contacted the above user to help her regain access to Wikipedia and ran across some of your messages to her.

You mentioned in a missive to her that one or more of her posts on her userpage “can easily be construed as a personal attack and comes off as quite childish.” You also wrote: “Your rant on your user page and above here that is basically a thinly veiled attack on editors whom you've had disagreements with in the past.”

It seems to me that “childish” and “rant” are hurtful terms which would be against some WP Guideline or other & I wonder if you would agree with me there. Since you were the person who wrote them, I’d like to know why you chose those words and not something less unkind. One reason I’m asking is because I think Admins should uphold the highest standards of decorum and these words don’t do it, in my opinion.

I’m thinking that the words “childish” and “rant” indicate you might be Wikipedia:PREJUDICED against that user and that perhaps you should absent yourself from any more contact with her or with her request. Thanks for your consideration of this thought and your response to this message if you care to answer it.

Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Disruptive editors don’t get act disruptively and be free from accurate descriptions of their behaviour. You’ll note I was neutral on the actual unblock request, but I do oppose the effort to allow individual admins to overrule community consensus: there’s a clearly established policy on that dating back years, and there is nothing special about this case. Having looked back at the ]behaviour I was describing, I think the words I used were fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't agree. I believe you should not have used those two expressions. I also think you were wrong to take the user to task for venting on her personal talk page: Really, she didn't attack anybody by name, and one could say that by listing her grievances she was actually helping to improve the workings of the encyclopedia by pointing out its shortcomings. I think you should have had a bit more forbearance in that particular episode. Power such as yours is not always meant to be used. Well, I hope you realize that there are editors who support the good work that User:Elisa.rolle has done and that you will maintain a friendly attitude toward her and those who are trying to help her out — that you might see fit to reduce her time away from positive editing, as she says she wants to do. One of the interesting catchphrases of Wikipedia is "Consensus can change." My best to you in your work here. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile, over a year ago, Elisa wrote a childish rant that in my opinion violated WP:POLEMIC on her userpage. She may have grown as an editor since, but it was an accurate description of her behaviour at the time, and I will not apologize for warning her to stop it in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. After I warned her about it, she removed it, so my words seemed to have their intended effect of getting her to take down attacks against good faith contributors.
I also don’t know why you’re bringing up remarks that happened over a year ago. The biggest problem Elisa has faced on this website is that she has had people enabling her previous disruptive behaviour and making it more difficult for editors like Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers to work in the area. Discussions like the one you are having now have a chilling effect on the people who devote significant hours of their time maintaining Wikipedia and working in unappreciated areas like copyright. Why on earth would anyone want to try to work with Elisa if any warning or feedback they give is likely to have them portrayed as an uncaring sexist.
I am all for expanding our coverage of underrepresented populations. I’ve volunteered at editathons IRL and done significant work behind the scenes cross-wiki to assist growing non-Western projects. That doesn’t mean we allow editors who are behaving in a way that is incompatible with the behavioural and legal principles of the English Wikipedia continue to behave that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
That being said: Elisa is currently banned, I didn’t oppose unblocking her, and the only comment I’d leave on any future appeal would be that she should be subject to 1RR and a no manual archive requirement. It’s why I’m very confused to the point of this discussion: I’ve never acted outside policy with Elisa, and you’re basically saying that a fairly routine warning I didn’t even remember means I shouldn’t be allowed to have any opinion on her ever in the future. I can’t imagine myself ever getting involved with her as an administrator if she’s ever unbanned. I just really think you’re going about this the wrong way. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion on WP:AFD on an article which is borderline in terms of notability and has WP:COI

Hi Tony, I recently came across a WP:BLP article Joshua Vogelstein which to me seems to be borderline in terms of Wikipedia:Academics and does not fit any single criteria. I am sure sometime in the future they would but as it stands now, IMHO it does not. The article also has a lot of issues with unsourced content and WP:SPS references (example using Neurodata website as a source of which they already have a declared COI and are an employee). Moreover, the biggest issue is the fact that the creator and the sole major contributor to the article is User:Aloftus2 who has a WP:COI with the article which they have failed to declare. Now they have declared the same of another article which makes me believe that they are aware of the rules and are trying to actively subvert it here (I might be not assuming WP:AGF but there is ample proof for it). Moreover, the contributor of the article is an employee of the person of interest which probably makes this a COI of paid nature ([1], [2]). I wanted your views on this since I believe that this article has lots of issues and it might be best to be nuked and taken though the WP:AFC route. Thanks. 104.145.220.28 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Returning sock?

In view of the comments you made at User talk:Timi422, you might want to take a look at Odunsi (The Engine) and its recreation by an account created this year. SpinningSpark 08:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The birthname of Draft:Emmy_Songz is "Nicholas Nde" Special:Contributions/Nicholas_Nde. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I’ll look at this later today when I have a chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Trout me twice at RfA

Hi there,

So I read the thread. Had a reaction. Doubted myself that what I read could be true. Struck through. Re-read it. And yeah. Trout me. But I would rather just roll back to my initial oppose. But I thought I'd talk to you here first. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Eta: I fixed it. Sorry. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, not a problem :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actions against editors should be preventative, not punative

Hi TonyBallioni, I am concerned about your seemingly excessive, punitive reaction in deleting the entire article about Operation Voicer, simply because you objected to redirects to sections about individuals. I am leaving a note here to remind you that actions taken against editors should be preventative, not punitive. You could have dealt specifically with the redirects rather than deleting the entire article. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't take any actions against you, either punitive or preventative. I deleted an article under the BLP policy and immediately sought review of my actions at WP:AN. I would appreciate if we would continue this conversation there rather than my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Important message

I see that another gathering of the elders has begun. Any predictions on the incredible pieces of wisdom to come out of this exercise? I am personally predicting a lot of "supporters balance out the opposers" (whatever that means), and maybe a bit of "looks like there is a stronger consensus for one side" (without any actual justification). I flipped a coin and it landed on heads, so I think that Floq will be re-promoted. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, a 'crat chat is where a group of bureaucrats read an RfA and decide which of the arguments they individually like and then vote to call those arguments consensus, so I say 50/50, leaning no consensus, but with a strong possibility of promotion. Have I mentioned I want RfA to be a vote and have a bot close it? Edit: after reading Dweller's vote they could also go democratic and call it consensus to promote, which per my last sentence, I'd be fine with, but it still doesn't particularly change my skepticism of "not a vote" and 'crat chats.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we may have discussed that before. I am personally looking forward to the first crat chat chat, where the promote/no consensus supervotes by the crats are equal and they need to call another time out to vote on their previous votes. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Who would close that chat of crats on their crat chat? I nominate MarcoAurelio. His name is very august and it is almost August after all. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ugh. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If they're smart, they'll get it over with as quickly as possible. Either way, they'll be criticized by one side or the other. Also, don't forget the entertainment value of the Talk page. BTW, I predict promotion, mainly because he's at the upper end of the discretionary range and that's an easy way out. Meanwhile, sit back, relax and enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, there is nothing like a good chit chat for entertainment value. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it has to be promote, don't you? If they fail someone at 74%, right after promoting someone at 64%, they are going to be hard pressed to explain themselves. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, it is a discussion, theoretically, so I guess they could make an argument about this thing or that thing having more weight, but if you can't tell from my comments above, I do think promotion is logically the best call since I think RfA is a vote in all but name. It depends on how they "weight" the Fram related stuff, though, and I think that will be a tossup.
In terms of musing about ideals, I personally think we should just lower the autopromote to 70% and get rid of the discretionary range because it makes things much more fair while also taking into account that the community does, generally, want to make RfA easier. Ajraddatz, I'll back off my call for getting rid of bureaucrats, because it was pointed out to me last night that they do serve a function that stewards would have a hard time replicating: desysoping easily and with local logs. m:SRP really is a pain and I'm more active on meta than most and I still can't decipher the log system there. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear non-US talk page stalkers

What do you think of when I say Green card and before I start the RM to move that page to Green card (disambiguation) would that be American-centric? I personally think having what in my experience in the States and out of the States as the primary usage halfway down a dab page isn't really reader friendly, but who knows, both of my passports are from North America, so I could be biased. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of any of those Green cards, for what it's worth. Adam9007 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) the first thing that comes into my mind is that old (and rather mediocre) film with Gérard Depardieu and Andie Macdowell. 😂 I saw that when I was about 15 and I'd never heard of the term before then so its meaning was a bit of a mystery until I started watching. I can't think of any other uses though, so I think from my UK perspective I'd agree with your assessment that the US visa thingy is the primary topic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as an American myself - but looking at the page to see what other uses there are for the term - I don't think the American usage is necessarily the primary usage. People in many other countries would immediately think of soccer - excuse me, I mean football - when they hear the term green card. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I may be wrong about that. I see that the sports usages of the term do not have articles of their own. But then, neither does the American usage. If something doesn't have an article of its own, it's hard to argue that it is a primary topic. I still think a DAB page is probably best for this term. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, the US usage actually does, it is just at it's official name rather than the common name (Lawful permanent residents (United States)). Green card normally refers to the status rather than the actual card, even when you're talking to a customs official with a stick up his ass. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm something of a football ⚽ follower, and I haven't heard of the two uses mentioned on the dab page, so they must be quite fringe concepts at least for non-Italians. Yellow cards and red cards are highly notable football topics, and used in all matches, but not green.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I also think of the film, which I saw dubbed into German (long story), though I was aware it relates to the thing. I'm not sure if you'd want to replace Green card with a redirect to Lawful permanent residents (United States). That might seem a stretch too far. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
As a Brit, I was only aware of Lawful permanent residents (United States). stwalkerster (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am English and watch a fair amount of football and have literally never heard of a “green card” in a football context. To have that obscure term as the first on the list is very odd. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So now that we have the association football aficionados weighing in, here is my (trying to set aside any unconscious biases) summary of that page:
  1. A bunch of sports warnings that most people have likely never heard of based on the response here
  2. The European cross-national auto insurance system
  3. The US visa status/card
  4. A referenceless article about computer programming things from the 1960s-1970s
  5. A movie about a Green card marriage
  6. The actual article about a green card marriage
  7. A song about someone hopping the US border fencing because they couldn't get a green card.
My bias here is that while I have a very internationalized group of friends and family (and I was a dual citizen at birth), most people I know have reason to want a green card or US citizenship, even if they live outside of the States, so they all know what a green card is. The thing for me that stands out as possibly the best contender for not moving this to a disambiguation page and redirecting to Lawful permanent resident is the European insurance thing, but I'm not sure how common that usage is in Europe. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The US immigration green card is so clearly the primary topic here - that there really is no question. The sports stuff is obscure (I won't say I watch much soccer anymore - but this is the first I've heard of a green card in soccer (being well versed in red and yellow cards)), and the insurance thing (around 50 page views a day) also has a different name and is much less notable. Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

After you move the current Green card content to Green card (disambiguation), would you then move Lawful permanent residents (United States) to Green card per WP:Common name? That actually makes a lot of sense to me - much better than making Green card into a redirect. And having it as the name of the article would firmly establish the American usage as the primary usage. -- MelanieN (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah, no green cards in football. Green card immigration thing is the most common usage, and from whence the Depardieu film gains its title. ——SerialNumber54129 10:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am hearing about green cards in football, for the first time. The first thing that strikes me on hearing it is American citizenship, followed by the Hockey-stuff. Have neither seen the film nor heard of the insurance system. I am fairly sure about mine being an accurate representative of S.E.Asian perspective despite the potential of being subtly biased, having spent time in NC .... ∯WBGconverse 11:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
North Carolina? ——SerialNumber54129 11:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Raleigh to be more precise ... Been there? ∯WBGconverse 11:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A neutral message that based off of this discussion, I have opened an RM at Talk:Lawful permanent residents (United States)#Requested move 31 July 2019 if anyone has views. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As a Canadian I am aware of the US meaning of the phrase but only because of the McDowel Depardieu movie. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I live in Mexico on a green card. Same meaning as in the US, the immigration status of a lawful permanent resident (and my residente permanente document is actually a green card). I do not think of it solely as a US immigration status. I also think of the movie, but have never heard of any of those other uses. SusunW (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion archived without closing

Hi! This discussion is archived without closing. Please close the discussion and remove the Topic ban. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

SS49, it seems to have been unarchived by another user. I'll let another admin review the consensus and close the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For helping your fellow editors by writing the useful essay User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64. DBigXrayᗙ 19:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Just block the 64

Hey TB, I just happened upon User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 after seeing this comment. As someone who has been intimidated by range blocks, I thought it was very helpful. So... thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I was hoping you would bring the wine bottle to the felicitation party--DBigXrayᗙ 17:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 A glass of Lassi for you
Here is a glass of Lassi for you. Lassi is a traditional Indian dahi (yogurt) based drink. I couldn't find wine, so here is a lassi. No, not the dog.
Thank you.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Thanks both of you :D. Also, for the record, I love mangoa lassi :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Azerbaijan admins

Hi, just asking you this because I saw your name on something in the signpost, hope you don't mind.

Am I being paranoid to think that those guys might be under pressure from the Azerbaijan government? I know that governments (like Turkey, good buddies w/Azerbaijan govt) notice Wikipedia. So if they are under pressure, where does that put us? Is there a precedent for this situation? Whew.

On a more practical note, is there a place where I can follow developments? (If I am asking you to be indiscreet, sorry.) Bruce leverett (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

[3], [4],[5]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So, here is current version of the draft, and do you think that the problem was solved? If not, what needs to be fixed? Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, My very best wishes, I'm in the middle of a transition real life, so I won't be very active the next two weeks. I'm only on right now to look at something another CU sent me an email about. Not trying to blow you off, but I think SlimVirgin would be better to review this than me if she is interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tony, this isn't something I'd want to review, but thanks for the ping. SarahSV (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, here is my question. Do this page clearly clarify for "speedy", after all changes? I think it does not. And in that case, can we recreate the page and let it go through the normal AfD process if anyone still thinks it should be deleted? I do not think it should go to WP:DRV because it was not deleted through AfD. In any event, I think the discussion and closing on AN was proper and should not be disputed anywhere including WP:DRV. So, I am not sure what can or should be done here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC). 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 04:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know, it isn't new, just a gentle nudge about the one from four days ago. Not urgent, either. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Saw it. I’ll respond now. Thanks for pushing me. For anyone else watching: RL is crazy right now so if I owe you something, please nudge me :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Take your time, RL takes priority. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

15 August

Best wishes for today, the Assumption of Mary. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

​ Oh death where is thy sting? Oh grave where is thy victory? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification

Hello TonyBallioni. Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has received an unblock appeal from Darkfrog24 and we have posted it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock appeal by Darkfrog24. I wanted to make you aware of the appeal as one of the recent administrators who modified Darkfrog24's block. Additional information is available at User talk:Darkfrog24#Restore user talk page access. Best regards, Mkdw talk 20:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Mkdw. It is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user

You blocked a user User_talk:Rasi56#Blocked as a sockpuppet and I was wondering if a notice is available for use at the top of the talk page. I had started some comments on the page and had to leave. When I came back I continued but after posting I saw the block notification at the bottom of the page that had occurred during the interim. I might have seen this had I been commenting in the last section like I normally do but actually posted in a relevant section to my comments. I even refreshed so as not to hit a possible conflict but didn't check the whole page. I suppose I will have to be more careful to do a page scan next time before posting. Sometimes you can win for losing-- LOL. Thanks, and for solving at least one issue I was having as well as a community-wide problem. Otr500 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Otr500, I don't think so? I nominated Template:Blocked user for deletion a while back and it was deleted, so that should give you an idea of my views on the usefulness of stuff like that, but the quickest way to see if someone is blocked is to enable the mark blocked feature in your preferences which will strike through and italicize any links to an indefinitely blocked user's talk or user page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look and correct. I have been having internet issues so having to connect thru hot-spot which is slow. Hopefully the internet issue will be resolved tomorrow. Otr500 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_30"