User talk:Chalk19

Hello, Chalk19, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good work against Varvounis! Tkwikihelper (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the edit warring complaint about Angelique Rockas. Since you have been following the history, you might consider filing a report at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard just to document the situation. In the past User:Bbb23 was active in blocking these socks, but he's not around much these days (unfortunately). Getting this posted at COIN or at the SPI is one way to be sure that admins don't forget about the issue. If you notice more cross-wiki problems, you could report them to User:Ajraddatz who is a global sysop and steward. Ajraddatz has indicated an interest by leaving a comment in the Amfithea SPI complaint. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston thank you for the advise. Actually, I have been thinking of doing this, and I will file a report soon. May be at Commons first (a very strong case there), then at en-WP and in the end at Meta. Do you think this is the right order? ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after I wrote the above comment to you I noticed it was almost enough for an SPI complaint, so I went ahead and filed it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have a new user Kotlenci :contributions. Jmax (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True! Thanks for the notification Jmax. For the moment the "new user" is contributing with minor edits, at least in en-WP and el-WP. I will keep an eye in case she/he is preparing for the "major attack" (removal of Original Research and COI tags). ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• update. The "major attack" has been finally released by another SPA/puppet, Obornat, who appeared right after the blocking of Kotlenci. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Εγώ είμαι μάγκα μου.Κάνε κάτι να ανοίξουνε το λήμμα του Ολυμπιακού.Εσένα σε ακούνε.Φέρτο από δω ,φέρτο από κει,πείσε τους.Άντε κι εγώ δεν θα ξαναπειράξω τίποτα.Εξάλλου τα βαριέμαι,αλλά αφού δεν μπορώ να γράψω για τον Θρύλο,γράφω μαλακίες και κυνηγώ και το άλλο το βλαμμένο.Τον Ολυμπιακό θέλω.Κάνε μου το ρουσφέτι.

Όταν το χέρι μου χτυπώ

δε θέλω να φοβάσαι

κράτα τα μάτια χαμηλά

ποιος είμαι να θυμάσαι!--188.4.217.81 (talk) 09

39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chalk - Berean Hunter suggested that I direct my question to you since you’ve been most active at Angelique Rockas. I’ve pretty much completed copyediting that BLP and participated in the AfD for the theatre. Hopefully my participation will eliminate COI concerns. I now have both articles on my watchlist. I don’t know the circumstances surrounding the IP/COI/sock/vandal edits and hope whatever that was about is behind us now. With that said, can we remove, archive or at least collapse the list of COI/sock blocks in the TP banner? I have not seen such a list on the TP of other BLPs before, although I am familiar with the COI template. Now that the COI issue has been put to rest, I don’t see a reason to keep the list in the TP banner. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Hi! Thanks for asking, but I am no owner of Rockas' Talk Page, so if you think that there is no reason anymore for the Connected contributor Tamplates to be there, then go for it! Anyway, there is a decent review of mine on the Rockas' socks editing activity, and their global blocks so far, so any user can get an idea of what has happened. For further details on the socks activities, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea/Archive. ——Chalk19 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your talk page messages at Dadaoglou and Pantazi, thought you'd be interested in this discussion: Talk:Anarchism in Greece/Archive 2 § Dadaoglou, Pantazi, Drakoulis czar 16:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so funny now! :D Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Αντικαθεστωτικός it's not funny; still, I am having lots of fun! ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't speak Greek, but if you do and understand what was said on the Greek wiki, yous should report this to WP:ANI so that someone can put an end to the disruption.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP, thanks for the message, and your advise for further actions. I am Greek. I am considering reporting the insident to ANI. ——Chalk19 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I don't understand. I looked at the sockpuppet records for Vrahomarinane. That account hasn't been here since 2017, but dozens of accounts since then have been blocked as his socks. And it looks to me as if the socks all want to say Piraeus instead of Athens. For example a sock named Majarampi insisted repeatedly in July-August to say Piraeus instead of Athens for the Peace and Friendship Stadium [1]. Same with Bobi XBM at Eurobasket [2]. One named Λόρδος wanted to say Piraeus, Attica instead of Athens. Here's another, Roni England, making it say Piraeus.[3] But in the current article, after it became between you two instead of IPs fighting it out, you are the one that keeps making it into Piraeus or Attica and removing Athens, and it's Jjik43 that wants to say Athens everywhere. Looks like you got involved on Sept 12, starting with the Eurobasket article, making it say Piraeus. Does this mean you are a sock of Vrahomarinane - because that was the edit that all his socks made? And who is Jjik43 in this tangle? Please explain this for me. Or maybe get that global rollbacker, User:Ah3kal, to come and sort it out. If he needs any help from an enwiki administrator, I'll be glad to do whatever he needs. In the meantime I have protected the article from IPs, but you and Jjik43 can still edit it - and you were the ones who were most recently edit warring so that hasn't really solved the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MelanieN, thank you for asking my opinion. The matter is a bit complicated, but I'll try to sort out some facts.

1. Vrahomariner is indeed a community indef blocked user that has since missused multiple accounts and IP's and is probably a part in this edit war
2. Vrahomariner was blocked because of inapropriate conduct and excecive editwarring. His main interest is Olympiacos FC, based in Piraeus
3. There is a crosswiki attempt to remove any reference to Piraeus and replace it with Athens in sport related articles as petty trolling Olympiacos FC's fans. E.g. Karaiskakis Stadium, the home of Olympiacos, and obviusly in Piraeus is changed to Piraeus, Athens [4].
4. To understand why this is trollish you need some context: Derby of the eternal enemies is the name of the football game between Olympiacos FC and Panathinaikos F.C. (the biggest team of Athens). Pireaus was a distinct city from the ancient times until recently (~60-70 years ago) and now is part of the Athens Metropolitan Area. But, ulnke any of the propper suburbans of Athens, and other minor towns and villages that are now part of AMA, Piraeus is the only that has e.g. it's own University, distinct parliamentary consistuencies Piraeus A & Piraeus B and above all in Attica (region)#Administration, Pireaus is a distinct regional unit consisting of what was traditionaly the city of Piraeus.
5. Jjik43 and some (related or not to him) IPs missusing circumstancial references where as one expects anything in the vicinity of such a gigantic urban area is called "Athens" try to remove "Pireaus" or append "Athens" to its name, wich will obviously insult the fans of Piraeus teams, and the intelligence of anyone having minimum familliarity with Greece.
6. Jjik43 and related IPs's main argument appart the above mentioned is that they are reverted by (or reverting) Vrahomariner therefore they are right. This stance was supported by a mentality promoted by a couple of (now blocked for a couple of months) el.wiki users who do not understand or abide to concepts like WP:Do not insult the vandals, WP:Don't feed the trolls, etc. and mainly the fact that Vrahomariner was not blocked for beeing wrong obviously, he was blocked for editwaring and abusive behavior, thus hunting him down, blind reverting any suspected edit of his, and interacting with him through insults and threats. This may sound shocking to you, but as is expected, smaller wiki communities do not have the experience, procedures and "legal" codes of en.wiki nor the size (obviously) to impose those to new users.
7. Finaly Chalk19 is a clueful el.wiki editor in good standing and I believe he won't start edit waring, that's why he is seeking other actions to prevent this problematic situation.

I hope I helped and sorry for my bad English, Regards.Ah3kal (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @MelanieN: Thank you for your questions and interest. There is not much to be added to what Ah3kal has written. The key issue in this Jjik43 / IPs case (btw, there is another account as well, an SPA, user Trefoil13, active mainly @ el/WP; its name, a reference to "Gate 13", suggests affiliation with Panathinakos FC fanatics; in Greek-language WP this account is suspected to be Jjik43's sock/meat puppet: it was a sleeper that came out of the blue to give Jjik43 a helping hand in their failed struggle to delete an article that has the word "Piraeus" on its title; cf. discussion of the proposal el:Συζήτηση:Πολεοδομικό συγκρότημα Αθηνών - Πειραιώς/Πρόταση διαγραφής) is that their actions is a childish "challenge" to Vrahomarinaner, or a "punishment" for his attempts -thru puppets, of course- to correct the figures of some tables in articles, showing/counting trophies won by several Panathinaikos or Olympiakos sport departments. Vrahomarinaner's actions have been reverted by users of that kind, as coming from a blocked user, regardless of the reliable sources provided. Even if someone else, like myself, investigates an issue and restores Vrachomarinaner's changes as facts supported by references to reliable sources, they would revert this changes calling him/her a Vrahomarinaner supporter. On the other hand, Vrahomarinaner fires back, reacts to their "anti-Piraeus" campaing accordingly, by adding "Piraeus" next to "Athenes", or even replacing it, even if there is no real reason to do so.

Example 1: The Neo Phaliron Velodrome was located there where today stands Karaiskakis Stadium, at the Neo Faliro district (note that Neo Faliro redirects to Piraeus) of Piraeus. Replacing "Piraeus" with "Athens", as the IPs and Jjik43 repeatedly do, is unproductive and disturbing editing, it is trolling. For comparison, take a brief look at the German article for Peace and Friendship Stadium. The beforementioned SPA user Trefoil13 changes "in Piräus, Griechenland" (the original version was "in Piräus", from the time that the artcile was created (November 11th 2018) until an IP recently (June 29, 2019) changed it to the comic "in Piräus, Athen", and so the edit war started) to "in Piräus bei Athen", a useless addition reverted by a user of the German-language WP (who has nothing to do with Greece, or Greek sport rivalries), commenting "keine Verbesserung" (=no improvement).

Example 2: In this case, Vrachmarinaner reacts to the "anti-Piraeus" stupid vandalism of the Panathinaikos supporters by adding "Pireaus" below "Athens" (namely located in Anhens, and/or Piraeus), because a couple of venues are actually located in Piraeus. Although "technically" this is not a false statement, it does not help much, it is rather confusing, because in this case the word "Athens" meaning is "Greater Athens urban are", "Capital urban area" etc. (there are a lot of terms in Greek used to describe this rather ambiguously defined area), or even "Attica" as a whole (Greeks, while away from the place they were born or live, and asked where they come from, usually reply by using the name of the capital town of this Province, not of their actual town or village, in order to give a rough indication of the special part of Greece they come from: so, "I am from Serres" may mean the town of Serres, but any other town or village of Serres (regional unit) too). This is unproductive and disturbing editing, as in the case shown above, so Jjik43 is right while reverting it this time (but cannot be an excuse for their abusive contributions).

I hope that now you have got an idea of what is happening here. Maybe the protection level must be raised if Jjik43 or Trefoil13 continue their "anti-Piraeus" editing. Wouldn't editing permitted only to "extended confirmed" users prevent them from doing so? At the same time, if they continue along this line at a cross-wiki level, I my have to file @ Meta a request to have these accounts globally locked. Kind regards. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @MelanieN: (on dates) The final phase of the "anti-Piraeus" campange of the IPs, user Jjik43, and user Trefoil13 @ e/WP started on July 1, 2019 with this, as a supposed purely "encyclopedic" concern, but soon the real reason behind it has been revealed, esp. after Trefoil13 "joined" the effort. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS2 @MelanieN and Ah3kal: SPA Jjik43 is back with their disruptive editing [5]. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I told the other editor of their talk page, if you and the other editor do not stop disruptively editing the article and edit warring either of you or both will be blocked. Take to the article's talk page to discuss this content issue citing reliable sources and come to consensus. If you're unable to do so then consider dispute resolution, but you must stop reverting and or editing to re-insert your preferred text. I am not commenting on the factual evidence of who is correct, I am simply warning you that continuing the way you both are will result in sanctions. N.J.A. | talk 13:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NJA: Thanks for the warning, but I spare no time to discuss with the SPA, because I am not going to feed the troll. Same as I weren't going to discuss with anybody whether the Eiffel Tower is located in Paris, or that Charleroi is not Brussels, even if there is a Brussels' airport at Charleroi, the Brussels South Charleroi Airport. I guess that nobody paid attention to the heart of the matter, although I gave links to detailed accounts of the situation. Anyway, nevermind, who cares. Cheers. ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karaiskakis Stadium; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. KillerChihuahua 13:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @KillerChihuahua: Would you consider reviewing the template warning above? I am discussing this issue with the user already on this page. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 13:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear Killer thanks for the warning, but for me there in no point to "callaborate" with an SPA and a cross-wiki troll. I will just refrain from editing further the articles. Regards. ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (after ec) I suggest that if you choose to refrain from editing, you also refrain from accusations anywhere except appropriate venues. I also suggest you learn to chill a little and make dispute resolution your friend; otherwise this problem is likely to recur on other pages, with other editors. You came to my attention because you reported an editor with whom you were having a content dispute on AIV, after making exactly zero effort to talk to that editor. Two admins have informed you that was not vandalism, and your response was to say you didn't have time to talk to them or pursue WP:DR. That's not a very helpful approach to editing Wikipedia. You will find that an ability to work with others, even those with whom we have strong differences, is a requisite character trait. KillerChihuahua 14:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with what Killer said. If you edit war without explaining your position on the talk page, nobody can tell why you are doing it or who is right. In fact, edit warring without explanation is much more likely to get a person blocked. I also agree that a content dispute is NOT vandalism - and if you call it vandalism, people are less likely to be sympathetic toward your side. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I followed your advise, and gave my point of view (cf. Talk:Neo Phaliron Velodrome). Please, consider that although it is pretty easy for me to confront Jjik43s tricky and childish arguments, at the same time it is very disturbing that I have to do it again and again (well, I know that users like Jjik43 count on this); I have done it extensively @ el/WP, where their views have been rejected as unproductive, and trollish. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chalk. I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrahomarinaner. Could I suggest that you remove it? It is too long, and not really helpful to that discussion. That is not a venue for discussing the merits of the argument, or going into extensive history. The only question to be decided at that page is about the reported IP accounts: are they socks of Vrahomarinaner? and if so, should they be blocked? I am not expecting much from that discussion, because there is really no point in blocking the kind of IPs that change all the time. And even if they do block the IPs, they may not say so publicly, because IP accounts are supposed to be entitled to some privacy. On the other hand, I am expecting action very soon at my SPI report about Jjik43. You'll be pleased. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! BTW MelanieN have you seen this? ———Chalk19 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have. He's claiming it was a friend's account and an accident, but I am having a LOT of trouble believing him. He's not doing himself any favors. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: The user has been already blocked indef. for sockpupptry @ el/WP. They gave the same excuses, but all evidence is against them. In el/WP they were suspected for sockpuppetry since last month, but when asked for connection between the two accounts, they refused. And, on the other hand, both accounts had been used for support in a deletion discussion that had to do with an article that had "Piraeus" in its tile. Plus hiding behind IPs, and at the same time using their accounts in combined actions. I see no "accident" here. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only a matter of time here, then. I have been considering an indef on that editor since yesterday myself, before the sock evidence even came to light. I try to always AGF and give editors a chance, but sometimes editors simply don't want to adhere to the standards of behavior here. KillerChihuahua 17:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Killer, you are right to have trouble believing it, because that is a checkuser report. That likely means that both accounts are hosted on the same computer. The "friend"'s account was created in 2014 and never used (at least not on enwiki) until 2019. The SPI folks here are treating it as a sleeper account. Of course they won't say so, but I suspect they found that a lot of the IP accounts were also him.

Yes, Chalk, that's what I was talking about. As for his claim that it was a mistake and he will be back "when the block expires" - the joke is on him. The SPI interpretation is that Trefoil13 is the sockmaster (the primary account), because that account was created much earlier, and that Jjik43 is the sock. That means that Trefoil will get a limited block but Jjik43 will be blocked indefinitely. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am I giving off vibes of being completely senile or clueless? Why are people explaining basic stuff to me? I'm truly perplexed. I was unaware I suddenly sounded like an idiot. KillerChihuahua 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, Killer! I was trying to agree with you, not talk down to you. I was expanding on the reasons for your (our) feelings mostly for clarity - for Chalk and other people less familiar with how things work here. Sincere apologies for not making that clearer. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's probably me. I got jumped on by multiple editors this morning for (apparently) not being a complete asshole and blocking newbies on sight, and my fur is still ruffled. I was told I was senile (by implication), confused, ignorant (again implied), and wrong, and I guess I'm a bit raw yet. I try to let such stuff roll off me but sometimes it's a bit hard, especially when there's a pileon. My apologies; you've never been anything but kind, civil, and respectful of others so far as I've seen. KillerChihuahua 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor puppy! Here, let me unruffle your fur a little. Some admin days are like that, aren't they? Sometimes we wonder why we ever signed up for this thankless job. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you! Much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 20:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN. Trefoil account created years ago by a friend see the version of trefoil13 account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjik43 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that took even less time than I thought it would. Indeffed as a sock. KillerChihuahua 23:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aree you kidding me? Those are MY accounts and I AM NATALI THANOU which i HAVE MY DOCUMENTS READY to attach for the ACCURATE BIRTH DATE - and i am facing myself with all kind of WEIRD people having so much to say- and i do not know how to use WIKIPEDIA editor well- since i am a new user- I just want to resolve this problem that has to do with MYSELF!!! Natalithanou3042013 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, you have been using multiple accounts as I have guessed in the first place. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a user has declared their connection to a real-life individual, it is considered OUTING to attempt to link the two. Please keep this in mind. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: He has, so please restore my original phrasing. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thank you for pointing to it; the information was not readily available from a quick check of their user pages. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Primefac. I sould have thought of providing the diff in the first place. Sorry for your time and trouble. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. OS has a tendency to "shoot first" given the potentially sensitive nature of what we suppress; I'd rather find out the suppression wasn't necessary than make assumptions and have personal info floating about. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I stumbled across your efforts involving the sock Pacific497/Amfithea here, whom you have helped to be blocked. I just found something interesting in the history of Internationalist Theatre: the recent edits by Special:Contributions/Volut. What caught my attention was a string of 5 edits at (for me) a very early hour, and the citing of a primary source in an edit that did not seem encyclopedic. As I have no dog in this fight, I'm referring it to you and user:Berean Hunter (seems to have vanished) to do with as you will regarding Volut.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: Thanks for the notification, although I am not very interested in Rockas' socks anymore. To the point: maybe you' re right, and this account is a new sock of Amfithea, but it's too early to say this. It's true that their conclusion ("has now become a subject of drama practitioner research projects in the UK") is purely subjective, based solely on a primary source, on a case of just one school, and it's not supported by secondary sources. So, their edit can be reverted just on this ground, regardless if the user is a new sock or not. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted all 5 edits.--Quisqualis (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keqrops, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ring.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]