User talk:Sasquatch

Archives: α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ

Dear Sasquatch,

Since I am a new user I know very little about how Wikipedia works. I also don't know if it was proper to respond on the noticeboard page. Since I was named and thereby had received a notification, I thought I must present my side. If I mustn't, in such cases, I henceforth won't.

Best,

Destroyer27 (talk) 6:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

She’ll probably block you for a year for typing a letter Tigerslayer2699753 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I just felt there were too many red flags. best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the mess here but it's probably worth leaving it unprotected as a honeypot ;) Praxidicae (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I was actually considering that as well. I think I'm just going to temporarily SALT it to slow down the craziness for today and then we can re-evaluate if things returns. Sasquatch t|c 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the next step is a filter. I'll work on that one. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I really want to thank you for blocking user:Vivekshukla21. This user has been messing up Wikipedia for months. CLCStudent (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: I really don't understand the argument of how naming India's first prime minister is a "political issue" despite it already being in the page. Absolutely unbelievable amount of WP:OWN and edit warring. I also want to thank you for all your efforts in reverting and listing vandalism. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 20:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely my pleasure! CLCStudent (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't think the edits made to User Talk:49.150.112.179 is patent nonsense. The user was clearly trying to create an article.

Whether or not the article was any good, probably not, but I think it would have been better to not delete it outright. Rockstonetalk to me! 02:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone35: I don't think Adam Levine, Bree Olsen, Renee Zellweger and John Newman ever participated in MegaMan related content called "Don't let Israelites GO!" or "Drill it deep, deeper, DEEPEST!". Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 02:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you're right. I only looked at the page briefly and thought it looked like someone trying to make an article. I should have looked closer, sorry. Sounds like a a candidate for Wikipedia:Still_more_Best_of_BJAODN. Rockstonetalk to me! 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone35: Hahaha, it may very well be. I can copy it to your sandbox if you wish to preserve it for the archives. Sasquatch t|c 02:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, go ahead! I would appreciate it! Thank you! Rockstonetalk to me! 02:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone35: Done. Sasquatch t|c 03:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Rockstonetalk to me! 03:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for your feedback on my name. i have requested a name change. Vseospecialist (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:1.144.108.193, in answer to a query of mine about whether a block was too long, you said "In retrospect, I agree the block should have been made shorter. I will unblock the range." Perhaps ironically, reading your message there made it seem rather more likely that the length of the block was not too long, and might even be considered too short, because having seen the edits from the other IP range that you linked to I could see that a disruptive editor had been active for close to a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joining this section, per my request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Request_IP_range_lock_due_to_abuse_on_day_of_the_year_pages this vandal is back again at July 3 and July 9 with the exact same problem as last time. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: @Redalert2fan: Yeah, I was hoping the IP vandal had just jumped to another range, but these are the kinds of things you just have to wait and see for. I've always been a firm believer that unblocks are cheap and we can just re-assess later as behavior comes up. I'll try to look into it later today if no other admin has already. Sasquatch t|c 18:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redalert2fan: and Sasquatch: When I wrote above "I could see that a disruptive editor had been active for close to a month", I considered adding something like "...and I wouldn't be surprised if it's been going on much longer than that", and I now see I would have been right. Even though the proportion of disruptive editing is high, I would be reluctant to block IP ranges with significant amounts of constructive editing for the very long period that would be necessary, so perhaps the way forward is to go through the tedious process of 365 semi-protections. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, 366. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Yeah, that may have to be the solution. Either option is disruptive to legitimate editors, so these are never easy decisions to make, but protecting the date pages may be less disruptive overall as non-confirmed users can still make edit requests at the talk page. Sasquatch t|c 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For now I have re-blocked 1.144.108.0/22 for two weeks to buy some time. If we do protect the articles, we can lift that block, but I can't even consider putting in the time required for all those protections now, or even a significant proportion of them.

If there were any way of checking, I would be willing to bet very heavily that the IP editor who made the unblock request, and who since the unblock has posted on numerous IP-block-related talk pages, is the date editor. Nothing that I could put forward as proof, but the whole tenor and tone of the editing is that which I have learnt over the years is typical of an editor who thinks he or she should be allowed to do anything they like and resents being prevented, and not at all typical of the attitude of a genuine innocent bystander caught up in collateral damage. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately once again the disruptive edits have returned, for example 1.144.111.219 & 1.129.105.137 + many more on a lot of different dates. This person just seems to write down on their calendar when their block expires and continue ignoring everything... -Redalert2fan (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Drop it already. JesseRafe is not hounding your edits. They appear to have made an edit to Suzi Leather independently, you reverted, they reverted back. Start an RFC if you want more input like you have said already multiple times. Hounding is when a user systematically goes through someone's edits on unrelated topics and issues to confront them. There is no evidence, other than a dispute about the manual of style, that JesseRafe has done such a thing. I suggest you learn to address things more collaboratively with that editor if you have an issue rather than throwing out spurious complaints. Sasquatch t|c 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user has accused me of being a paedophile and being a severely sick individual. He also accused Wikipedia personnel of harboring and protecting me. This is libellous and a violation of BLP. can you take action against them please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I should welcome your views at this appeal, please. Thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted; thanks for your help. Just Chilling (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving you a heads-up that this editor has also used 37.248.161.175 and 83.23.239.38. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: No activity from those IPs recently. If you find a new active one, report it to AIV. This is typical of a IP hopping long term abuse user where they hop from between public wifi spots. A block is usually not necessary on old IPs. Sasquatch t|c 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you merge the following 2 titles Madhuraswapnam and Madhura Swapanam. Both are same movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.197.164.181 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hello Sasquatch:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of My Baby Burger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 26 April 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasquatch! On another user's talk page, you recently told them not to "delete other user's comments". To my knowledge, it's totally acceptable to do so. Am I wrong? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: I reviewed the policy and you are absolutely correct. For some reason I thought there was something about warnings not being deleted but I see now it is much more narrow. I was going to address the same point the deleted comment made, but I will do so in a new warning next time. Thanks for pointing that out. Sasquatch t|c 20:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out with Wikipedia! Voraciousdolphin (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Block Me 2Rhwjt (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2Rhwjt: As long as you understand why your edits were not helpful and refrain from doing that in the future, there will be no need to anyone to block you from editing. Sasquatch t|c 19:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moo

Excutient^Talk 20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sasquatch

I am utter novice to editing pages on Wikipedia. I created my account of 3 July in order to protect the biography of a living person (myself) from vandalism. I recognise the COI in this case. I utterly respect the need for neutrality and the sharing factual information. However, the page on me has, over time, been edited in such a way that information on my scholarly achievements has been stripped back in order to make other information about my involvement in the creation of new degree program - a BA in Western Civilisation at the University of Wollongong more prominent in unbalanced and non-neutral way. The page is missing other important details, currently contains factual errors, and spelling mistakes. I would like to provide a substantial, accurate update for this page but I do not wish to run foul of your COI rules. How can I best do thatDanhutto (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)?[reply]

Danhutto Hello Dan, have you reviewed our guide to best practices for editing your own article? I would start there. First off, you need to disclose your conflicts of interest per our policy here. From there, for any substantial additions, please suggest it on the talk page of the article in a new section and user the {{Request edit}} template after which it will be reviewed and potentially added. Copy edits for grammar or removal of unsourced negative content (like the edits you made recently) are generally considered okay. However, if they are reverted, please discuss on the talk page and do not engage in edit warring. Beyond that, the guide has information on what we limit our articles too. You may also want to review our policy on reliable sources with a focus on our policy on self-published sources. Sasquatch t|c 01:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I want to ask you, can I apply for rollback rights now, Please see my edit history? ItsSkV08 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ItsSkV08 I see you made a request recently. I would wait at least a month before requesting again and consider why you believe you need rollback powers as discussed. Sasquatch t|c 16:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sasquatch. Thanks for your note on my post regarding Martin Bresnick. I'm completely new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your message. I'm a fan of Martin's music, but perhaps I should understand more about Wikipedia before I go editing things. The references for the information I added are from Martin's own homepage and from the website of his publisher, Carl Fischer. But I'm afraid I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I guess one question I have is whether it's possible to revert to the form of the page before I added my edits and to start over. I'd appreciate your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkney94 (talk • contribs)

Orkney94 Thanks for reaching out! For starters, Wikipedia keeps a copy of any edits that were made that can be accessed from the page history. Your revision can be found here. I strongly suggest your carefully review our help guide on referencing. Some important policy to review carefully are our policies on verifiability, neutral point of view and reliable sources. I reverted your edits because you did not provide any reliable sources. We generally require secondary sources (i.e. sources that don't come from the subject themselves) for information that we put into an article. There were a couple of problems with your edits as you presented them. First, you simply made a large list of awards that reads more like a resume and ganders more into promotion than a neutral point of view. I also went back and removed claims like he is "widely influential teacher of contemporary composition" that are reliable, independent, secondary sources to back up that claim. Same with the description of what his compositions are like. We generally want to avoid sources from PR pages (like from music publishers) when backing up these claims as well. Although it may seem harsh at time, we are committed to verifiability, not truth on Wikipedia (that is to say, simply being a true fact or opinion is not enough). If there are news sources, books, or academic sources (e.g. papers) on his work that can back up this information, then it is our job to find a neutral way to present that information and source it properly. To get you started, maybe reviewing some papers like this one or this one would be useful in crafting a paragraph on Bresnick's style. Finding news articles on major awards he has on and giving proper weight to them in the article would also be appropriate. I hope that helps! (PS, please try to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)). Sasquatch t|c 19:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find access to this 1998 NYT article, it may also be helpful in citing a lot of the career history and style. I'll try to find some time to find a home for the content in the article but always glad if someone else can help! Sasquatch t|c 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasquatch. You just blocked 174.196.197.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for their vandalism on gun articles. They have popped up again as 174.242.77.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with the same edits on the same articles. Could you apply a block to that one as well? Many thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laplorfill yeah, I'm looking into an appropriate range right now. Sasquatch t|c 01:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed. Best, Laplorfill (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now switched to an IPv6 address 2600:1000:B05B:6613:AD41:31B5:D170:2BFC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Would it be worth doing an RfPP on the set of articles involved? Laplorfill (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that may be the answer. Whack-a-mole is getting too hard. Sasquatch t|c 01:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you revisit Prakrit, as your revert reverted, but with somewhat different wording and more refs. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasquatch. Hope you are well. Incase you didn't get the ping, or my edit gets reverted, I've added these comments in regards to A.A Prinon's unblock. If you need anything else from me, please get back to me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I just wanted to let know my apologies for asking another editor which country they are from. Won't do this kind of mistake anymore. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chynapras (talk • contribs)

Chynapras Thank you. Please review the policies I outlined carefully. Especially our personal attacks policy which clearly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Veiled allegations that someone is making certain edits because they are of a certain nationality are clearly inappropriate. Sasquatch t|c 19:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. And I will obviously go through the policies that you gave me. And I just ended my rivalry and my fight with Mr. Prinon. So no more personal attacks. Just peace. And I am sorry again for asking another editor his living country. Will obviously try to show more professionalism from next time as you asked me. Thank you for rectifying my mistake. 👉Chynapras👈 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think I had done grave mistake by apologising Lugnuts. I have promised that I wouldn't stalk their edits. And I am really not stalking. But they have recently reverted my edits at Will Buttleman. As I have said earlier, I will try to discuss with them politely. I have tried to leave them a message on their talk page. But they reverted my edit saying me an "idiot". So, isn't it a personal attack? As I have promised, I won't attack them in any circumstances, but I need help in these situations. So, please help me what shall I do? — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 07:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.A Prinon How do you find pages to edit? Also, why did you suddenly show an interest in Pascasio Sola after your unblock? Sasquatch t|c 08:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edit pages based on recent coverages or match reports. But, I am now never stalking their edits. How can I now make you believe? What have I done to cause them annoy? And I have not suddenly shown interest in Pascasio Sola. I earlier also created a couple of football articles, Sayed Rased Turzo and Anguilla national football team results (1985–1999). Although, I don't have vast idea about football, I sometimes create stub articles related to footballers. I haven't made any personal attacks on that user. And are you supporting Lugnuts' behaviour in this instance? — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Buttleman was edited by Lugnuts one month ago, so how can it be stalking? — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.A Prinon I'm dealing with that separately. There's nothing further for me to do at this point from my perspective. If there are further issues please take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Sasquatch t|c 10:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. I was just asking you not to believe in Lugnuts, he is perhaps trying to re-block me by misleading the admins. I will never make any WP:PAs in any circumstances, I will keep ignoring Lugnuts, as I am not really stalking their edits. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 10:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch - sorry to burden you with this, but seeing as this is still ongoing, I feel obliged to respond. Note how Prinon doesn't answer your question about Pascasio Sola directly, instead just mentioning a footballer they created two months ago. The only article that links to Sola's page is 1955 South American Championship squads. This list I'd been working on a day either side of the creation of Sola's biography. So how exactly did Prinon chance upon him and create a biography? In the past two or three days, there have been these edits, with every one that passes more and more AGF filters away:

• very next edit
• this edit, followed on the same article by this to remove content I'd sourced (!)
• this quite frankly bizarre revert citing vandalism (!), which they claim was a mistake
• edit summary, directly after my edit
• another random edit

You asked me to "tone it down" on my talkpage, which I'm happy to do so. How much good faith do I give here? After they agreed to a vol. i-ban, and promise not to return to houding/stalking AFTER being blocked for it, this continues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: I don't care who created the article or else. Ok, to prevent accusations on stalking, from the next time I will see if it was recently edited by you or not. I even didn't know that 1955 Copa America was created by you or you were working on it. Apart of it, As I have told earlier, I save page into watchlist for 1 week after editing. I assure you I am not stalking your edits. Please show some WP:AGF. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And all the diffs you cited, there is a one day gap between my and your edits. So, it can't be stalking. If it was stalkibg, I would edit minutes after. My and your edit has big difference, none of those are causing you annoy, those aren't hounding. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, If you are assuming bad faith, I also have to. When there's one day gap between my and your edits, you are calling stalking. Then I also have to cite some examples.

• Here I hadn't pinged or mentioned Lugnuts. But they have replied here since they are following my edits around.
• As soon I made pending changes request, they replied there without any recent edits to that page, since they are stalking.
• This article was created by me, but they edited that just minutes after I made an edit, see this diff.
• Again a edit after an hour in the article.
• Another random edit just after a couple of minutes since I edited.
• Same example here.
• And Lugnuts how you know what pages I recently edited, that means you are stalking my edits.

There are many such examples that can be cited, but I don't accuse Lugnuts of stalking, because I always assume good faith. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you several times now - stop pinging me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, now you are admitting that you are stalking my edits, right? — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many more recent examples in favour of Lugnuts' stalking:

• A very flush edit to this article after I had edited. This gives the impression that they are stalking.
• Redirected the article without any past substantial edit.
• Older examples include- this revert of my edit.

Lugnuts is in fact trying to cause me annoy, which I don't intend. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you STILL keep pinging me! Stop it. The change to Phil Salt's article was obviously as he was playing that same day. This edit was to redirect an exact copy of an article I'd already started! And as for your questions about edits on Curtis Campher's article, as you well know, he's in the starting XI for today's match, where I've updated all the other players as you can see here! That's Ieland's international match against South Africa. The very same broad topic area Sasquatch requested you stay away from. This is getting beyond a joke now with you playing dumb with relation to these edits. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give excuse now, you have indeed followed my edits around. I also made edits to those articles after receiving recent coverage. And, can you please stop bothering me? — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch - after multiple request asking Prinon not to ping me, including in this very thread, they just ignore this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was just an edit request. I had to ping to get you notified. And you have the ability to mute me. You can do it for not getting further Notifications — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasquatch - hope you are well. For info, this user started to edit under another account after this one was blocked. More info can be found at this SPI report. I don't know if that requires an update on A.A Prinon's block log from yourself. Thanks for your help with this matter earlier in the year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a request for help at User talk:2600:1000:B019:41D:280C:73F3:5309:FAD0 ,relating to a block you placed on the range 2600:1000:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40. All the editing apart from that request for help has come from the smaller range 2600:1000:B040:0:0:0:0:0/42, as far as I can see. I have reduced the block to that range. Changing a block without consulting the blocking administrator is something I scarcely ever do, but I saw that you had not edited for about 5 hours, and since it seemed like a clear-cut situation, I decided rather than leave the editor waiting I would deal with it right away. If there is a good reason for the wider block that you know of but which is invisible to me then please restore the block, and accept my apologies. I will also check back myself from time to time in case I have unwittingly open the floodgates, and of course jump on the block button if so. JBW (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBW Not a problem at all! That specific LTA editor hops IPs like crazy anyways. Hoping they just lose interest soon more than anything else. Thank you for dealing with that. Sasquatch t|c 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a red face emoticon on my phone, so this will have to do:🤢.

It seems I must have checked only the last hundred or so edits from the range before I modified the block. I have now checked further back, and I see that the abusive editing is spread much more widely across the range than I thought, so I've restored your block. JBW (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted all of the books as self-published. I'm not sure exactly how books published under one's own imprint makes it ineligible for listing, but I know some of his two titles on Practical Zen are published by Singing Dragon, which Wikipedia says is an imprint of Jessica Kingsley Publishers. --JakusanZendo (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of "self-published," Some of his books are published by Zenways, a Zen center that he runs. Here in the US, some of major Orthodox publishers are St Vladimirs Seminary Press. A goodly number of their publications are by their faculty -- does that make them "self-published"? If so, we would have to strip almost all of the books by Orthodox theologians such as Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, Paul Meyendorff, John Behr, Thomas Hook, etc. There seems a relevant distinction to be made between vanity publishing (where one pays to have one's work published) and institutional publishing where the author is part of the institution. --JakusanZendo (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just FYI. An anonymous IP address deleted your additions to the Anthony Merchant page as being "not well-sourced nor NPOV, and violates policies". Interestingly they didn't also delete the longstanding unsourced statements about how he's appealed his disciplinary suspensions. Seems to be a long history of anonymous edits deleting unfavourable content on the page. I wonder if it isn't people from his firm. I've also suddenly had over 100 invalid attempts to login to my account since I added the disciplinary sanctions section, which had never happened to me before.Macho Philipovich (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)@Macho: Thank you. I will keep monitoring the page. I'm not sure there's much we can do about idiots trying to access your account other than to suggest that you use 2FA (if you aren't already). Sasquatch t|c 23:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My password is 36 characters long and includes special characters, so I'm not too worried about someone making 100 wrong guesses. It's more just the whole thing strikes me as very sleazy. Macho Philipovich (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasquatch, will it be possible for you to increase the protection on various Springfield firearm pages? The articles have been the target of vandalism and sock puppetry for over 4 months and I think an indefinite protection level like you did on the Charleville musket, Potzdam Musket, and M1752 Musket would be effective in stopping further misuse. I've filed a formal request as well and please feel free to have a look. [2] Thank you Gunhawk91 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was left by one of the sock accounts behind the disruption. -- Longhair\^talk 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started some editing of Marion Carll Farm then noticed your revert. Shall we stick with removal of the unsourced comment? Neils51 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neils51: I think it violates NPOV and should be removed. Sorry, haven't been active lately but I will take a look. Sasquatch t|c 12:28, 15 September 2021 (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) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki is supposed to be factual. Opinion should be marked as an opinion. There are suggestions that sound race biased in this article. It should be mentioned that Opinion on JoJo's(Joanna Noelle) vocal style is that of the one wiki writer, only. Her style is subject to interpretation, and opinions are subject, exclusively to ear of beholder. 173.75.43.9 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article on JoJo the singer has opinions that suggest race bias about her singing. That comes across as offensive. Wiki is about presenting facts as opposed to opinions. 173.75.43.9 (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sasquatch! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:Local Embassy, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:Local Embassy.

Thank you!Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wishing Sasquatch a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User talk:64.107.3.137, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kaseng55 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Sasquatch a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   interstatefive  00:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi Sasquatch! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]