User talk:Longhair

This user may have left Wikipedia. Longhair has not edited Wikipedia since December 6, 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Re:June 2021[edit]

Apologies for leaving a message here as well as on my talk page, but I'm not sure whether you also watch talk pages of IP addresses after leaving a message there. I noticed that you reverted my edit to 2020 in arthropod paleontology, but in a message you only mentioned that it appearing unconstructive, and it's not clear to me what it was exactly that caused the revert. Regards--188.147.32.84 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@188.147.32.84: You edited Burmesia to Burmesiana, which is not supported by the reference provided. -- Longhair\^talk 21:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It very much is - please check page 193 of the reference provided. Regards--188.147.32.84 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I wasn't about to begin reading over 250 pages but my document search failed to locate reference to your changes. I do see now where your edit is supported by the reference. Apologies, and please continue editing thanks. All the best. -- Longhair\^talk 22:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using wikipedia as a timeline for my minecraft server[edit]

So I noticed that one of the things that can get a Wikipedia page taken down is if it's not "notable". My anarchy server will never be as big as something like 2b2t or hypixel, but would it be okay to use Wikipedia as a base, so that It can grow as my server gets more popular? I am completely new to making content on Wikipedia, i didn't even know there was an article wizard that's how little I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraconicPiggy (talk • contribs)

@DraconicPiggy: Wikipedia is not free web hosting. May I suggest you find yourself a web hosting service. -- Longhair\^talk 22:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:VG Rasta[edit]

Hello, Longhair,

Looks like this page might need to be protected. I saw on the Deletion log that you recently deleted it but it's been recreated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. The editor is keen to see it published, abusing multiple accounts to (attempt to) do so. -- Longhair\^talk 00:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brusatte's Twitter as a Source for Steve Brusatte Information[edit]

I added a section to Brusatte's bio about his work on Jurassic World: Dominion, saying that he had been involved in the introduction of feathered dinosaurs to the film franchise. The source was a tweet he made. I understand that Twitter is Twitter, but it is coming directly from Brusatte, so it's essentially a primary source. I figured that statements made by public figures about themselves, regardless of platform, were acceptable citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Monkeys from Outer Space (talk • contribs)

I get what you're saying, and yes, the guidelines on reliable sources does mention that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". The tweet wasn't about himself however, but a film. On a second glance at your edit, you do back up the claim by referring to an "extended preview" (which I haven't seen), so I'll accept your reasoning and welcome you to revert my change to the article. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

I opened a SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CONSURE MEDICALS PVT LTD for two accounts which you already blocked. The user has freely admitted creating multiple accounts using at least seven different email addresses, and is doing so for the purposes of undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just enjoy living dangerously eh? Thanks. :D -- Longhair\^talk 16:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a super advanced system that detects mentions of Wegot that Bedugu hook[edit]

how tf did you find that, seriously 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I even put spaces and switched words around 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear i'll easily come back on another account, but i don't know how you are "busy in real life" and find stuff like that 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've seen it all before and one tends to think like they do in order to prevent what they do. Block evasion isn't exactly an original concept you know :D -- Longhair\^talk 01:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page[edit]

Hey, this is my first article I am publishing and want to figure why the last was deleted. Don't want to be breaking rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corai Quinn (talk • contribs)

@Corai Quinn: The links left on your talk page describe the issues in detail. In brief, you were writing about yourself, which is a conflict of interest, and secondly, the topic may not be notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. -- Longhair\^talk 02:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Collegeplacers[edit]

Hello, I have no idea why this happened, the notification was sent out using Twinkle and it somehow replaced your block message. My apologies, and thank you for the block. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: In all my years here, I've never seen such a thing happen either. My guess is we just happened upon the same talk page at the exact same time, edit conflict style, yet the usual edit conflict alert didn't occur and your edit wiped mine out. It seems a one off occurrence. If it happens again it's a bug somewhere. It was easily fixed however and the end user possibly won't notice a thing. :D -- Longhair\^talk 06:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a super advanced system that detects mentions of Wegot that Bedugu hook[edit]

how tf did you find that, seriously 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I even put spaces and switched words around 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear i'll easily come back on another account, but i don't know how you are "busy in real life" and find stuff like that 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've seen it all before and one tends to think like they do in order to prevent what they do. Block evasion isn't exactly an original concept you know :D -- Longhair\^talk 01:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So do you watch IronManCap's page or what 92.4.79.94 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong delete[edit]

Hi you delete this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Hooman+Saffari but everything is was right you can check it by yourself on imdb https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12538758/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoomansf (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

186.91.100.180[edit]

Could you revdel the edits and edit summaries of this IP? It's WP:LTA/GRP or copycat, and the edits contain links to attack sites run by GRP containing highly abusive libel aimed at several admins and other users. Such links have usually been revdelled, such as on my talk page. Thank you. Java Hurricane 04:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Sure. I'll go back once they slow down and give them a wipe. -- Longhair\^talk 04:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Java Hurricane 04:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at 103.152.102.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), please block. Java Hurricane 04:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Yeah I know. He's moving about as I block. They'll get bored eventually... they always do. -- Longhair\^talk 04:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: I think I managed to revdel them all. If I've missed any or they return feel free to let me know. Thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 04:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed 201.227.60.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Java Hurricane 05:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Done. And blocked. -- Longhair\^talk 05:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing his usual talk page abuse at 197.50.81.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again linking to a blacklisted libel site. Java Hurricane 06:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Hi Longhair,

I wrote an article earlier this year that was review and edits were suggested. Today I made those edits but now the article was deleted due to principle (don't write articles about yourself). I am under the impression that it's quite normal that artists contribute to wikipedia themselves. Some of my works are difficult to find and people often refer to the missing wiki page were such information may be found. As a professor I find students are similarly asking about my presence on wikipedia. I could hire or ask someone else to write the article but that appears to be a bit silly to me. Have you reviewed my latest edits? If so, what in your mind is still missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikAlbert (talk • contribs)

@HenrikAlbert: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is interested in what other parties have to say about a topic, not what a topic wishes to say about itself. Wikipedia is not for self promotion. Please review WP:PROMO, WP:PAID, and WP:COI. Also, your article was never an actual article, but a draft article. An actual article on Henrik Frisk has never actually existed. Your draft article was rejected for publication due to not meeting the notability standards required for musical artists. If you're simply here to promote yourself, you'll run the risk of an indefinite block if you continue to do so. -- Longhair\^talk 12:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Sorry for confusing Article with draft article, that was a mistake. Fair point about Wikipedia being interested in what other people have to say. I have of course read the notability standards required for musical artists (which should be revised as they are not very clear, and communicates a dated view upon what a musical artist is in 2021) and I believe I meet the requirements for the context that I am active within, else I would not have contributed in the first place. This should have been clear from my complete revision today. Not sure why you think I am simply here to promote myself, but the warning of indefinite block is uncalled for. However, your first review was not inline with the sudden deletion, that was the reason I wrote you. If this was not a mistake I will drop this now. — HenrikAlbert (talk • contribs)

@HenrikAlbert: I did not review your draft article, but whoever did followed the long established guidelines here and deemed it not worthy of inclusion. Your own talk page details all of that information. If your sole intention is to write about yourself and / or your music, that is self promotion. As Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, you're more than welcome to suggest a revision or update to the notability guidelines. And blocking is the usual outcome for those who use Wikipedia for promotion, or else the place would be full of 13yo rappers recording music in their bathrooms, YouTube cat videos galore and all kinds of fluff nobody really cares for. -- Longhair\^talk 22:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Fine. I must then have misunderstood the first review. To me it explicitely asked additional information to support the article. That's what I did but then it got deleted, hence my writing to you. I hope that bit is clear now. I would be happy to contribute to the guidelines, although I would expect those to be part of a more strategic aspect of Wikipedia. I understand the bit about self promotion and will still argue that is not what I am doing, but I will drop it now. The problem is that a very large number of articles should then also be disqualified, which I think would be a shame. There are existing articles referencing me (my name) that now don't lead anywhere, and after 30+ years working internationally I am not a 13 year old rapper. And to just make a general claim (though I may be wrong about this): To make the point that there is a general interest in an article about x, unless the reviewer has specific information about the field that x is active in, x has to promote themself, hence being disqualified as self promotion. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I will certainly take a look at the notability guidelines. — HenrikAlbert (talk • contribs)

@HenrikAlbert: I've restored your draft article. It is available at Draft:Henrik Frisk. I've done this as upon a second glance, you had a pending draft submission waiting review. I mistook the template at the top of your draft rejecting the previous review as being current. I hope this helps. Also remember, if your draft article is accepted, it will be a conflict of interest if you continue to edit that article directly should it be accepted. On the topic of other articles existing, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Longhair\^talk 17:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KIXSoftware -> Hobber1062[edit]

Going through CAT:UNBLOCK again. I agree with this block, it seems reasonable.

The response from the editor seems promising. They have chosen an appropriate name, they say their previous name was from a defunct software company.

They claim they are just a fan of the radio station and that they based the format on the article Zenith Classic Rock which seems consistent.

I have pointed out to them the COI, SPAM, and NOTABILITY policies. I have pointed out that their radio station probably does not meet our notability requirements. I have asked them where they do intend to edit if unblocked.

Assuming their responses to these concerns are reasonable and I keep an eye on them after, how do you feel about me unblocking? Also please let me know if you have any other concerns to add. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: I did find this, which from my quick glance looks to be a web-based RSS reader where KixSoftware promotes said radio station. That led me to believe the two are linked. -- Longhair\^talk 01:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I will ask them to explain that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

181.9.163.240[edit]

Hi Longhair, this ip is a sockpuppet of Walter Ezequiel Matthysse Jr., globally banned by autobiographical spam. Regards Valdemar2018 (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valdemar2018: Thank you. I've blocked that ip for a month as I cannot block it indefinitely. Good catch. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 10:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northpoint Bible College[edit]

Longhair,

Thank you for your messages. I appreciate the information and direction.

I am new to Wikipedia (editing) and certainly wish to comply.

I am new to Northpoint, and I noticed errors or things which could have been stated better or differently. Thus, I entered corrections. If I have erred, my apologies, and I will do what is needed to correct.

Any guidance you have would be appreciated, and if I have missed something, I certainly wish to correct that as well. Thank you, TH — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrThomasHarrison (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrThomasHarrison: Hello and thank you for your reply. As an employee of Northpoint Bible College you have a clear conflict of interest with the topic and your contributions to the article are considered to be paid editing. To avoid any issues, it is advised not to edit the article on Northpoint Bible College directly, but to request edits via the article talk page. You will also be required to add a conflict of interest declaration to your userpage so other editors are aware of your paid status. This can be done by using the {{UserboxCOI}} template. Please let me know if you require any further assistance thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 22:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To Reverted Article[edit]

Well, good to hearing from you. I messaging you regarding the reverted page which i contributed. I have read through wikipedia guide and I always ensure to follow their guide before supply any information. Hence, I updated a link and it was reverted by you because you saw it as spam but well, any resource I supply, it was related to the topic of discussion, as such to encourage us for continuous updating of wikipedia, our effort should always be considered as our mission is to keep wikipedia legacy going.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frediemie (talk • contribs)

@Frediemie: You linked to a commercial LLC company website providing air quality products while naming the link as being the International Conference on Urban Air Quality. That's not only misleading, that's spam. Just for the record, I was the first to issue you a warning not to add links of that nature, and somebody else has warned you since. -- Longhair\^talk 08:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for clearing the air. Apology but I want us to understand, most of the time, someone edit wikipedia changing the title to similar one but still, wikipedia editors see it as you are trying to manipulate links to a particular resource. Also, I want to make us understand that before, I replace dead link, I will first search for the old url link on search engine, if it still available, I replace it exactly but if not I look for a similar work inline with the topic. However, I will try as much as possible to adhered to the guide, also, editor should always be slow to revert to keep motivation willful mind who want to contributes.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frediemie (talk • contribs)

@Frediemie:I can see what you're trying to do, and I assume you're here to help the project remove dead links. I think you just need to be more mindful about what links you're adding. Usually, business related links that advertise products or services are not welcome unless they relate directly to the article topic. That another editor has also taken issue with your changes tells me that more care will need to be taken. I think it's a good idea to, as you say, see if the existing link is still valid and still online elsewhere before changing the link entirely. -- Longhair\^talk 09:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links on In Situ Adaptive Tabulation page[edit]

Dear Longhair, the links to external pages you deleted were in fact not in accordance with Wikipedia standards, once they were the body of the article. But they are important information for ISAT users since there few known open source implementations. Implement ISAT is a non-trivial task, allow the readers to know about the existing codes is important. In this sense, I will again include the links in the article, but this time in the external references section.

Leigh Harris[edit]

Thank you for monitoring the Leigh Harris wikipedia page. Her husband Rick Ledbetter is using it for self promotion. He delved into recordings she forbid him to touch when she was alive, and "remastered" them, at times with disastrous results. He is marketing them on her Bandcamp page and has arranged that he reap with money generated from sales. He is fully aware this was against her wishes and was only able to do this after her death.

The CD "Home" was released in 2007 not 2018. What was released in 2018 was his remaster of the original. That date needs correcting.

Deevaleigh (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)deevaleigh[reply]

@Deevaleigh: With a very clear conflict of interest, he shouldn't even be editing the article directly. I've left messages at his talk page but last check they've been ignored. -- Longhair\^talk 09:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: New revisions by user 2600:6C40:5800:1298:19B8:E19E:894F:6A0A2600:6C40:5800:1298:19B8:E19E:894F:6A0A made 29 August from a mobile device are reverting to content from edits made 14 July 2021 at 2:13. Back Door Blues Revue was an after hours “Open Mic” style jam with musicians dropping in after their gigs. Leigh Harris, among other musicians, sat in a few times. It was not a band she “fronted” New edits violate COI, lack neutral POV, has ongoing paid editor issues, lacks objectivity/encyclopedic tone, and is promotional. Based on former revisions, new editor possibly a sock puppet. As Leigh Harris is deceased and no longer contributing musical works, her legacy is complete. Would it be feasible to remove the aforementioned violations and then lock the page?Deevaleigh (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Deevaleigh[reply]

@Deevaleigh: Feel free to revert the edit. I did see it arrive but not being familar with the Harris story I sat back and waited for a comment such as yours to arrive. Should you revert, and they revert back, see if they engage at the talk page or battle it out like last time. -- Longhair\^talk 20:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gutfeld edit[edit]

The wording was extremely biased and inaccurate, the wording was fixed to be more neutral and accurate, less biased and inflamatory. If you are opposed to accuracy, professionalism and neutrality, you are demeaning your own credibility. There's no 'source' needed to reword "attack" to "protest", when there was no attack, and it was merely a protest, contrary to the hyperbole and hysteria being pushed by one side, the same side that calls domestic terrorist attacks, 'peaceful protests' by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.5.135 (talk • contribs)

Even the article you're linking to refers to the "protest" as an attack in the article title. Use the relevant article talk pages to discuss your controversial changes rather than edit warring to your preferred version of events thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 23:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Cuban protests[edit]

Can you please revert back to this version. This should not be added until the RfC request about such addition is completed. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: See the comment I just left on the article talk page. I'll read over the RfC shortly and see what the current consensus is before making any article changes. As you are an extended confirmed user, you may already be able to make such a change. -- Longhair\^talk 21:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful information for those who are seeking for govt jobs india.[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for telling me, that you have removed that external link. but this link might be helpful for those people who are seeking for Jobs in India. We at DailySarkariResults.com provides job information (several types of govt jobs) at one place. we collect all the job information from interenet resources, news, employment News and many other places and put the correct information on this website. So in my opinion, please add this url DailySarkariResults.Com in a reference lists.

Hope, you understand.

thanks & Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilvermait01 (talk • contribs)

@Anilvermait01: Sorry. It's spam. Wikipedia isn't the place people arrive at looking for jobs. -- Longhair\^talk 04:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

removal of edit at River Valley High School[edit]

Thank you for your reason to revert my edit at River Valley High School. I am thinking of including it in List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–present) since it is now confirmed to be a student killing his classmate NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020: Just a heads up. The investigation is in the very early stages. Yes, it's quite possibly big news at present, but tread very carefully how things are worded to avoid subjudice which could affect any possible future legal proceedings. Sometimes it's good advice to simply wait until some time passes before making any statements about such events and that information could change rapidly this early in such circumstances. The media is often quick to break news but that doesn't always mean they have all the facts. -- Longhair\^talk 07:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is reporting the incident is sparking national debate about mental health of students. Already two senior ministers have commented about a local high school, which isn't very famous, not like Raffles. So already, there is indication that this is a major event. Also some other school articles have mention of a killing of one student. Two examples are given on the article talk page. Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok that does make sense NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Edit war I am not intending.

I have used the talk page. I have added international sources from several countries. I have made modifications. Yet the other guy just blanks out the entire section. His/her reasoning is very odd. He/she makes up things that is not wikipedia policy, like saying that only when there is negligence on the part of the school can it be in an article. Please help. Are you an admin? Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charliestalnaker: Two editors are now reverting your additions. I make no comment on the content other than a separate article on the attack did exist before the other editor you're warring with redirected it, and that the talk page discussion clearly hasn't found an acceptable outcome as yet. -- Longhair\^talk 05:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RVHS Attack[edit]

To me the idea that NOTNEWS applies to what may potentially be the first case of domestic terrorism (or at least the first case of somebody getting killed) in a Singaporean school is rather goofy. Separate arguments raised elsewhere, like the event is not notable in itself because only one victim died, instead of many ala a typical US school shooting, sound absurd and callous. I wonder if you have any thoughts regarding this. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice the other messages above mine. Well, my gut tells me that Robert et al's reasoning for page blanking and merger are spurious, to say the least. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: You'll note on the school article itself I was the first editor to revert under the same application of WP:NOTNEWS, but that was very early on after the incident. I'm undecided as of now... somewhat in the corner of it's a bit early to know of the significance of such an event, leaning towards if this event introduces any changes or has any lasting effects on schooling in Singapore then it may very well warrant an article. I'll leave the editing and reverting alone for now... there's no rush to write up such things, and time is usually a good thing to allow pass to look back on just what happened and what effect it had on those who are left to deal with it. The message above arises from edit warring on the topic, and I wasn't offering any thoughts on the content up there. You asked, and to summarise, it's too early to see what lasting effects such a crime will have, which will bring the article from this happened to this happened, and had this lasting effect, ie, from being just news, to an encyclopaedic event. - Longhair\^talk 07:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoflettuce, your edit comment to reverting my page blanking indicates as it a good faith edit, but yet call the reasoning as spurious. Make up your mind. At the time of my page blanking, the style of writing on there read to me is more of a news report rather than an encyclopaedic entry. Like Longhair, I do not see the rush to write about the subject until when it is clear that there is a change in Singapore or lasting effects in schooling here. I didn't see the rush to create an article about David Roach robbing the bank (which would probably have failed AfD if created on that day of crime committed), so why the rush to create an article for this? Nonetheless, I ain't stopping you from having the article up there for now. Time will tell if the article will survive the notability guidelines for events. – robertsky (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Robert, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. I do believe you were acting in good faith but that your reasoning is spurious, i.e. Seemingly but not actually valid. And the article now still reads more or less the same as it did at the start so I don't quite agree with that either. In any case, that would be a cleanup issue, not one that warrants page blanking. I will not comment on the false equivalence between this event and others. We can agree to disagree Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock User:MAHosieAPS[edit]

Please re-read the very earnest and well-meaning userpage again. That user did not state that 3 people were sharing the account, the user disclosed that "any new pages created" would represent joint work by a team of three people. The appropriate response here would be to advise them that this is not acceptable under Wikipedia rules, rather than to issue an indefinite block as if the person were some LTA. See also WP:BITE.

I have no COI and no relation to the APS other than that several articles on my watchlist are for scholars who are members there, so that I noticed a sudden pattern on my watchlist due to multiple reversions of the useful information about their memberships. E.g. [1] [2] etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Can we keep this conversation on one talk page please? I don't mind where, just keep it intact. Helps make it easier to follow. I am not sure if you've seen my response at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers. I will unblock because you clearly know more about this arrangement than us two admins do, so I'll accept your explanation and unblock the account. Now I apologise if this has been stated previously, but can you point me towards the information on these conflict of interest exceptions that apply to Wikipedians in residence or aligned organisations thanks? Clearly this was something both of us admins knew little about but now it's been made clear, we both require all the information about such an agreement. You're welcome to reply about that info or their unblocking here. -- Longhair\^talk 11:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: They've been unblocked. I'll followup in the morning (it's late here) about their editing and if they are indeed sharing their account. This is something that, if it hasn't been previously noted before, should be posted at the relevant admin noticeboards because I can assure you this is not something that struck either of us as the accepted norm. -- Longhair\^talk 11:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking! I don't know anything about COIs and Wikipedians in Residence. I don't really know much about any aspect of this ruckus except that APS is a notable organization such that being elected a member is a big deal. It's a bit like the National Academies except that APS includes historians, poets, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, etc. so their meetings are probably more fun.

It is very understandable that people have an instinctively hostile response to paid editing, even when disclosed. But I was touched by the innocent well-meaning of the MAHosie userpage. And I am touched by the kindness and promptness of your response. (Maybe my grandma was right and I am just plain "touched" in general. (That's a New England joke.)) Have a good sleep. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: I think what we can take away from this is that neither of us admins knew much about the APS, or that being a member is a big deal. Everybody with a cart to push wants to promote their organisation or membership of same at Wikipedia and it is easy to see them all as one spammy lot in the end, paid declaration made or not. You're clearly more knowledgeable on the topic than either of us are so I for one am accepting of your explanations here. Perhaps we can assist to make their userpage, as well intentioned as it is, very clear on what they are doing, why it is somewhat accepted, to the point, loud and clear, or someone, somewhere will possibly eventually block them again. Goodnight. And thanks for teaching me something I find somewhat interesting here. -- Longhair\^talk 12:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange:Hi all-- I certainly don't want to evade accountability, but, on my end, none of this was intentional. This is a new project I was made to take on for work. I had some preliminary training in the form of a Development Training module, and, clearly, some of the rules laid out in said module were lost in translation for me. For what it's worth, no one but myself has access to my account. Jeff, Julie, etc. were colleagues who worked on this project before I was made to take it over and I wanted to acknowledge their contributions. I'm happy to take that part out of my userpage if need be. That said, any other tips you have that would help strengthen my userpage and/or clarify my paid status would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding and patience.-- MAHosieAPS\^talk 09:37, 20 July 2021 (EST)

@MAHosieAPS: As Longhair pointed out above, you are going to get blocked repeatedly by admins who stumble upon your pattern of edits. (And your userpage while charming is TMI and confusing.) I suggest you find an experienced "mentor" Wikipedian administrator and get pre-approval, which you mention on your talk page, for certain kinds of repetitive edits. For example, get explicit approval to add to multiple articles the statement "(Person name) was elected to the American Philosophical Society in (appropriate year).(citation)" Part of your problem is that most non-academics have never heard of the APS and don't understand that being elected a member is useful information to the person's bio. Please don't take that as advice to go add promotional material to the APS article! That would indeed get you blocked. I am not an admin or even very experienced myself, so my endorsement of your edits wouldn't help you. You need help from an experienced admin, preferably somebody in a time zone that is awake during the same hours you are awake. You can also get very useful help and advice in real time using IRC. I do that often. Almost as instantaneous is posting a request for help/advice at User_talk:Oshwah and god bless Oshwah that this is so. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: You may not find an admin willing to put their name to such pre-approval, lest they be seen to be muddying their waters with paid contributors etc, especially if that's stated someplace on a userpage. Admins are held to a high standard (and I am in no way suggesting that fraternising with the APS is lowering standards), and are often dealing with issues that lead some disgruntled editors who've clashed with an admin to point the finger suggesting they've "gone rogue" or "abusing their tools" etc. MAHosieAPS is doing all they can to work within the rules (and I thank them for clarifying the shared account issue btw), but they did attract the attention of two admins who saw "spam" and undid 8 months of work in a night. I've sat here wondering how else this could be done... categorising APS members wouldn't work as effectively but perhaps an article such as List of members of the American Philosophical Society might? Such a list could be referenced with the very same references provided in each article edited so far. All of the information is in one place. If it's jumped upon as promotional, it's only one article to undelete or similar, rather than 1,000 or so that as you know were largely reverted last night. Perhaps then with the existence of such a list, categorising members might then be worthwhile. The list talk page could then clearly explain the editing circumstances. I'm just brainstorming here... feel free to throw my ideas aside on work them into something that feels and looks right. -- Longhair\^talk 22:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MAHosieAPS: Where can I find information on WikiProject:GLAM which you mention on your userpage? My quick search fails to locate it. -- Longhair\^talk 23:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at Wikipedia:GLAM. -- Longhair\^talk 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Hello again! Many, many thanks for your suggestions. In terms of a List of members of the American Philosophical Society article, there is a "Category:Members of the American Philosophical Society" [3]. Would strictly adding to this page violate COI restrictions? I wish I had other solutions to suggest, but I don't really know what's possible in terms of changing the way I edit to avoid violating guidelines. I don't want to force you to walk me through this process, but I'm not quite sure who else to turn to. I apologize if I'm making this too laborious and time-consuming for you.-- MAHosieAPS\^talk 13:31, 21 July 2021 (EST)

The citations proposed by MAHosieAPS are useful of themselves as capsule biographies for notable people, e.g. this one for Rita Levi-Montalcini or this one for Tore Frängsmyr. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your page reversion and comments with ref to user: I10love9kangaroos84 I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[edit]

Thank you for your recent contribution and revision on the page with reference to this user, I10love9kangaroos84.

It should be noted that users 203.220.186.201 and Nospamalot, who made edits to the page, are very likely the same person. This person is a known political opponent of the subject, who commenced editing the page on 14 July, making many more edits from 19-20 July. This person has no intention to constructively contribute to the page, only to frame the subject in a negative light in an attempt to discredit the subject, vandalise the page and advantage their own political agenda.

With respect to the edit under discussion, as re-added to the page, this was originally added by Nospamalot (2 contributions overall) with a comment: "Was alerted to the whitewashing of this page...[the subject was] a colourful member of the government from 2016-19 who featured prominently in the media across a number of high-profile events, which seem to have been removed from this page. Added with full citations from credible news sources"

There has been no "whitewashing" of the page with respect to the new content added by Nospamalot. The "high-profile" events referred to as having been "removed from this page" were never removed from the page as they were never on there to begin with (as evidenced throughout the pages edit history). These are totally new additions to the page added only by Nospamalot, the content of which has never been on the page before now.

In terms of the content, while Nospamalot has provided "sources", the content either is defamatory, inaccurate, does not present a full picture or attempts to frame the subject in a negative light via 'guilt by association' for matters outside of the control of the subject.

With respect to the first removal via this userpage, I10love9kangaroos84, the comment added was: "These changes are an attempt at harassment of the subject and page vandalism by subject opponents based on incomplete or incorrect information. For example, it must be noted that the original reporting regarding Gretals was incorrect in that Gretals had not received a Commonwealth grant at the time...[the subject] invested. While...[the subject] had mentioned this company being the successful recipient of a grant in Parliament, Gretals had later rejected that grant prior to...[the subject's] SMSF investing in it."

When Nospamalot then readded the content, the comments again removing this content noted the defamatory and incorrect nature of the content by utilising the tags " Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. Your recent edit(s) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it here. Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. Thank you.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

"

The first allegation at hand in Nospamalot's content was that the subject's self-managed superannuation fund had invested in a company with less than 25 shareholders that had allegedly received a government grant, creating an alleged constitutional issue. This was later totally discredited given that Gretals had actually rejected the grant before the time the subject's superannuation fund invested in them, meaning the original media reports relying on a speech to Parliament were also incorrect. This was confirmed via both statements in online media articles from Gretals ("Gretals “did not proceed” with projects that were to be financed through the global connections fund. “We never received funding,” he said), as well as legal advice from David Bennett QC putting the subject totally in the clear and discrediting his political opposition's claims. It should be noted that the subject considered commencing defamation proceedings against the original media sources who printed the later discredited information, but determined not to due to the cost and effort involved.

The inclusion of this content on the page by Nospamalot with an early media source, containing later discredited information, is only therefore intended to put the subject under a cloud to try to discredit him.

It should also be noted that this statement made by Nospamalot is also unsourced and totally incorrect: "The parliamentary vote to refer...[the subject] to the High Court was defeated and...[the subject] continued to serve as Member...and contested the 2019 federal election." There was no vote to refer the subject to the High Court after the above information discrediting the original claims came out, so this statement by Nospamalot is also incorrect.

The second allegation at hand in Nospamalot's content relates to environmental grants. While the Facebook posts and media release themselves were clumsily worded (as explained by the subject at the time), in the actual video announcements within those same original Facebook posts the then Minister for the Environment and the subject made it quite clear to local organisations (being organisations who had submitted EOIs for the program) that those would be environmental projects that would be nominated under the environmental grants program only once it formally opened, with funding to flow if both the subject and the government were re-elected. Again, this was an issue brought up by the subject's opponents that was discontinued by them upon them getting no traction.

The third allegation at hand in Nospamalot's content relates to government decisions and actions beyond the subject's direct control, again though attempting to put the subject 'under a cloud' to discredit him. Firstly, it is true that the subject joined the Treasurer to announce funding for commuter car parks prior to the previous election. Nospamalot is incorrect though in stating that "these plans were scrapped in 2021". The State Government in 2021 rejected building the car parking on their land, but the funding itself is not lost. The Federal Government has instead been actively working with the Local Government to build these car parks on local government land instead, with discussions ongoing. The remainder of Nospamalot's commentary then does not relate to the subject. The subject was not involved in the administration of the programme, nor in determining which commuter car parks would be chosen to be funded through the program. This was done at the ministerial/executive/departmental level. While media concerns have been raised recently about the Federal Government's administration of this program, this does not relate directly to the subject. Thus, this is yet another attempt by Nospamalot to embroil the subject by attempting to discredit him and 'put him under a cloud' of guilt by association.

In summary, please respectively consider removing this recently added (and re-added) section written and added by 'Nospamalot' from the subject's Wikipedia page, particularly given it contains discredited, defamatory and incorrect information. Please also keep an eye on the page to prevent this vandalism of the page occurring, which as mentioned is being done only to frame the subject in a negative light in an attempt to discredit the subject, vandalise the page and advantage Nospamalot's own political agenda.

It must be noted that, while this page has existed for years, the last week is the first time that serious attempted vandalism of the page, for a political agenda, has occurred.

Thank you very much for your time looking into this matter.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: I'm aware there is very likely sockpuppet activity at the said article, and there are ways and means to look into that. Your wall of text above goes a long way towards explaining the actions of other editors but doesn't change that I warned you for removal of sourced content. If the references provided are defamatory, then there are other ways to have that dealt with, but Wikipedia isn't that solution. If the information in the article is verifiable and sourced from a reliable publication, that is what Wikipedia wants to include. Nobody will win by using sockpuppets, by edit warring, or by claiming otherwise reliable sources are printing defamatory content. There's been a lot of activity at the article, back and forth, by obvious new accounts with a single purpose. By worrying about your own editing style, and reporting issues with other editors if you see them behaving outside the rules, and using the article talk page to discuss edits which are deemed controversial, you may find a solution in the end that doesn't involve the article switching back and forth endlessly. The article will likely be protected from editing until a consensus is reached on the content if the behaviour that has occurred until now is going to be the way forward. -- Longhair\^talk 22:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to reply as a sub-comment to your reply, so apologies for the separate post.

Re your reply, so what is the solution?

It should be noted that as soon as your warning/comments were seen, this user I10love9kangaroos84 has made no further undo or changes to the page. And you mentioned on the I10love9kangaroos84 talk page that "If you think I made a mistake" to go directly to you, which has been done.

Currently, Nospamalot is being allowed to put up commentary (including inaccurate and irrelevant information) to deliberately discredit and frame the subject in a negative light for political purposes, which as noted in the previous comment on this talk page also includes unsourced and incorrect information: e.g. "The parliamentary vote to refer...[the subject] to the High Court was defeated and...[the subject] continued to serve...and contested the 2019 federal election." where no such vote ever occurred.

You've also acknowledged this as being sockpuppet activity.

If any attempts are made to even edit or clarify this information added by Nospamalot (then re-added by yourself), then you've indicated that further page changes may be blocked. This then allows for this information without changes or clarification to continue on the page.

It should, separately, be noted that 203.220.186.201 removed multiple sets of fully sourced and cited information without any ramifications. But in this case where information was removed written by Nospamalot that selectively used sources, in the situation that Nospamalot was trying to frame the subject in a negative manner for political purposes, action was taken to restore this content (in favour of Nospamalot).

It would be therefore asked that this section, which is damaging to the subject and incorrect in many regards, be removed by you as an Administrator until a conversation, say over a talk page, can be held regarding this content.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: I cannot look into the entire picture right now as I am busy offline but will try to return later in the day to look deeper into the issues going on at the page. I suspected sockpuppet activity; I didn't acknowledge it, but I've been around here for a while and I've seen similar editing before and usually it'll be something untoward going on via new accounts with an agenda to push etc. I can assure you that if I look and find editors I suspect of being sockpuppets I will be looking into that further and acting accordingly. That goes for editors on both sides of the content diagreement. I did not say you cannot edit the article or face a block. I asked for the edit warring to stop, and both editors involved were warned at the time. In the meantime, there is also available the BLP noticeboard where issues of this nature can be taken for a wider look into the issue when time is not on my side. If no resolution is offered there in the meantime, upon my return I'll take the time to go over the edits and see who's up to shenanigans or not. -- Longhair\^talk 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: I've asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris_Crewther. Hopefully this helps until I can be more available to glance over it all. -- Longhair\^talk 03:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your looking in-depth into this matter is much appreciated.

And, apologies, as your comment "The article will likely be protected from editing until a consensus is reached on the content if the behaviour that has occurred until now is going to be the way forward" had been taken to mean further edits of that section added by Nospamalot might be taken as an edit war resulting in protection of that section for editing, and thus incorrect, unsourced, and/or incomplete (aka 'framing') information then remaining.

Also, apologies for using the word "acknowledgement", noting you have said that "I suspected sockpuppet activity; I didn't acknowledge it".

For context, in this case, edits of this page commenced on 14 July 2021 from 203.220.186.201. Changes made included reframing previously neutral sentences such as "serving as its Federal Member of Parliament from 2016-19." to instead read "and serving until his defeat at the 2019 Federal Election.", as well as other changes such as adding that the subject had been unsuccessful in a recent preselection.

It should be noted that this person is a known political opponent of the subject, identified based on their previous edits using the same IP address. The context is that the subject came second in a preselection on 10 July 2021, so this political opponent has attempted to alter the page to undermine and discredit the subject to reduce the chance of them re-emerging as a political candidate in the future, which also though has an impact on the subject's current employment prospects.

After these changes were made, further changes to the page were made to re-assert neutrality and to make other updates. It effectively has snowballed from there, with further changes made by 203.220.186.201 that became increasingly more malicious as edits and corrections were made. 203.220.186.201 also made edits to other pages edited by 123.208.64.237, such as edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Slavery_Act_2015 by going through publicly available edits previously made under IP address 123.208.64.237.

Edits back and forth have currently reached close to neutrality on these other sections though.

However, this has then snowballed further and led to the recent section being added by Nospamalot (aka 202.220.186.201) which is much more malicious in targeting the subject to try discredit them, including using both unsourced information and sourced information without full context to try 'frame' the subject in a negative light (information which was later was discredited by other sourced information as previously explained to you).

This more malicious section was also added with an accompanying dishonest edit, where Nospamalot states that the subject "...featured prominently in the media across a number of high-profile events, which seem to have been removed from this page." noting that all this information added by Nospamalot was new to the page and had never been previously removed (as evidenced by the page's edit history).

Surely Wikipedia pages should not be able to be misused by political opponents in attempts to discredit political (or ex-political) subjects and to advantage themselves politically? These malicious edits should be deemed as vandalism and non-neutral edits, and thus disallowed.

If this section is removed, the page would be pretty much neutral in its current form otherwise.

Noted also upon almost completing this reply to you is your referral of the page to the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons noticeboard. That is appreciated. Adding to that, given your involvement in this matter, your direct looking at the history of the edits would be much appreciated when you have time, given you are busy offline currently.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: Firstly, to reply within a section of a talk page, or any page for that matter, scroll up to the section header and use the edit button there. That'll open the edit window in just the section you're editing, almost the same as article editing. Talk pages are really no different. Helps keep the conversation in one place and clear.

As for the section, I can see what is occurring, and the title alone is problematic. Most politicians are at times the focus of media attention, so a quick look tells me an attempt to bring negative light through such a section. is possibly occurring. To help me out here until I can devote more time to this issue, can you provide me with any usernames and ip addresses that you believe are editing the same, ie, you feel they're the same person. Am I correct in suggesting this section alone is the problematic one you feel isn't neutral? And if that section were to be removed and taken to a talk page discussion, there would be some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption a way forward where any reliably sourced information could be included and the remainder discussed until resolution. For now I have marked the section as requiring attention for neutrality issues. -- Longhair\^talk 05:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Thank you for your instructions on how to reply within a section of a talk page. 'Focus of media attention' is indeed a problematic title, as you say, as this section could effectively be filled with media articles and content about the (or a) subject both positive, negative and in-between. There are always negative articles on politicians of all shapes and sizes, often fed by opponents both from other parties and within (and in a number of cases not true or only partially true (particularly in opinion articles or where particular journalists have political links or bents on all sides), and often later discredited in subsequent media or rebuttals), so any political page could therefore be framed in such a way with similar sections to only highlight such alleged negative content. Such sections therefore set a bad precedent and a potential back and forth exercise between editors of pages (often non-neutral editors or subjects facing edits, particularly when it comes to political pages).

As requested, the usernames/IP addresses that are editing the same (being extremely likely the same person) are 203.220.186.201 (a known political opponent of the subject) and username Nospamalot. On the current version of the Wikipedia page, while there are parts that could do with some minor work, this section is the major problematic one that is not neutral. If that section were to be removed, and taken to a talk page discussion, that would provide some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption as a possible way forward.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: OK, I've taken a deeper look over the edit history, and I also came to the conclusion that nospamalot and 203.220.186.201 are editing with an aim to portray the subject in a negative light. I notice now you provided that information earlier so my apologies for skimming over that part. What I also found was several accounts on the opposing side of the debate, Vry7564woh18sad (talk · contribs), Pmp10984IKWYA (talk · contribs) and yourself, as I10love9kangaroos84 (talk · contribs). They look like throwaway usernames to me, but that's perhaps my suspicious mind at work. I did not find any editing between those accounts that suggests they are switching between accounts, but they may be related. Are you linked to any of those accounts by chance?

While it may be coincidence, all 3 of those usernames are editing in a positive way towards the subject, and all named similar, using numbers to intersperse their username. I did not find any evidence of what we call sock puppetry, meaning I suspect nobody us using multiple accounts wrongfully to feign support to push their points of view and similar. In saying that, in regards to nospamalot and the ip, there is nothing against the rules to say an editor using an ip cannot later create an account and resume editing. That happens quite frequently. Should they return to editing under the ip however, that is leaning towards foul play.

Remember, content that is verifiable via a reliable source and meets the policy on neutrality is worthy of inclusion in the article, taking into consideration the issues of due or undue weight.

I propose this solution. Clearly state your objections to the section concerned at the article talk page. Don't use edit summaries to discuss these points. I'll watch the article and if other editors are not engaging in talk page discussion but rather return to edit warring or pushing a point, they will be dealt with accordingly. Again, I've left a template to alerts editors to the issue with the section concerned which refers them to the talk page where they can hopefully read and discuss the issues you can outline there.

Also, the image currently being used I have tagged as a copyright violation as it's been lifted from a news website without permission. Another image will need to be sourced because the current image will be deleted until permission to use such image is sought. -- Longhair\^talk 07:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was nbot my biography that you deleted[edit]

Hi LongHair, I respecfully urge you to publish the biography as it is not mine. It belongs to person who has done alot for the social welfare and human rights in Pakistan. Please publish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsptiofficial (talk • contribs)

@Wsptiofficial: Ok, this is pretty simple. When a user named Wsptiofficial creates an article titled Wajahat Sami, who is a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, you're very likely writing about yourself, or very closely associated with that person. Your article was deleted as being promotional and shouldn't be recreated by somebody connected, such as yourself. -- Longhair\^talk 21:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the quick response. He is my mentor, thats why I published it Wajahat178 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the quick response. He is my mentor, thats why I published it Wajahat178 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your further comments and discussion with ref to user: I10love9kangaroos84[edit]