Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPP)

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

Protection request - Template:TaxoboxEdit

Please protect Template:Taxobox. Highly visible template with almost 3000 transclusions. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Done - Thanks for noticing Griff (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please protect List of people who have walked on the Moon, there has been a recent bout of vandalism on the page from unregistered users. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel (4)Edit

diff. The lyrics of Never Gonna Give You Up are still copyrighted. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Done - Thank you as always. Griff (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Replying here as there's four threads about copyvio revdels i've started here. More Rick Astley. User's contribs. You know the rules (and so do I). — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 03:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  Done - Never gonna say goodbye (except to copyrighted content). Griff (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


A number of accounts are being created, but not used. Unless this is for an editathon, or a school project, it's potentially a problem:

Lights and freedom (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about or block them until they have been abused. Simply having or using multiple accounts isn't a problem even at this stage where there are 19 of them but it isn't really necessary. Most of them haven't edited yet. --Ferien (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
In the case Griff hasn't seen this: @Griffinofwales. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's an issue unless there's abusive use of the accounts. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I blocked 3 accounts as they were continuing to re-create deleted articles. While there's no issue in having the accounts, we act against users, not accounts. Using accounts to avoid problematic edits being linked is abuse on its own. This may require further technical investigation.. CUs? Griff (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Since Griff's reply, numbers 20-25 were created. Now accounts with the prefix Morpeth.penguins are created. While I have not noticed any further abuse, this is somewhat disruptive. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Iirc, there are abuse filters that can be created to log accounts meeting the criteria and even disallow creation. Maybe a job for one of our more technical admins? --Ferien (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please block Miel2872Edit

Miel2872 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Change to stop the topic name from being too lengthy --Ferien (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) HallowMixels: The Videogame (2002) is a hoax created by the author of the article. The user have previously been banned from Wikidata for this very reason. --Trade (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Now he's continuing to recreate the item as (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). --Trade (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  Done - Blocked both as violations of our ONESTRIKE policy. Thank you for the report, Griff (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC) (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) also created Hallowmixels (Mixels AU). @Griffinofwales: --Trade (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not done - Stale report - use VIP for future block evasion. Thanks! Griff (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed userflagEdit

I couldn’t find any section where I could ask for the ‘confirmed’ userflag at the usual place for asking for flags, so I’m doing it here. My alternate account, MxYamato, is auto confirmed, and I would like the ‘confirmed’ userflag for this account. (Changed signature; accidentally posted request from main account). MxArya (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm I am MxArya. MxYamato (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  Not done "Auto confirmed" is automatically given by the system after you have made a certain number of edits. I don't see a reason why we need to expedite this process. Griff (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Plus, as admins, we can't press that button, it's out of our reach. You'll need bureaucrat attention for that, and at that point, it's just for confirmed, I think it's just easier to make a few edits to get to autoconfirmed yourself. --Ferien (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Disney and television copy pastesEdit

Copying and pasting articles mostly about Disney movies and television networks from the English Wikipedia, often without any simplification at all. Some examples:

I'd have used the copyvio tool to help with the comparisons, but it's not working for me.

VIP report was rejected because they did not receive a warning this month, even though they have been doing this since April. The user was given a single-issue notice in late April ([1]) for copying and pasting from the English Wikipedia. Multiple warnings were given since then. The user has been given many occasions to simplify the articles they have created, but they have not done so. They have failed to engage in communication. This isn't the only time an anonymous user creates copy and pastes about Disney movies and TV networks. See Special:Log/2601:206:4100:3180:F80B:4CBD:623C:9220 and other logs from that range. This is too much trouble for the patrollers to deal with. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User is a probable LTA, but even if not, ENGAGE comes to mind. If this user was showing evidence of changing their behaviour, I'd be willing to work with them, but I don't believe we should expect our patrollers to clean up behind those that are willfully ignoring our policies and content guidelines. Endorse editing restrictions, either through an article namespace ban or outright blocking. Griff (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Since creating this report, the editor has only continued to create more copy pastes
Again, they have been given time to simplify these articles but they have chosen not to do so, instead creating even more copy pastes. They have not responded to any notices on their talk page. Something needs to be done. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I have given him a temporary block. If you want to put them all on QD, go ahead. You have properly communicated with him, and it has been ignored. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    Almost as soon as the block ended, created The Whalers which was copypasted from enwiki. Seems like they still ignore the warnings. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 06:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    Noting that they appear to have continued in the 2603:8001:1900:2128:D0C5:FAED:DC19:4807/48 range. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    Please report any further issues to VIP linking back to this discussion. Best, Griff (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Userspace protectionsEdit

I forgot that protections go away when a page is deleted. Please protect these pages:

Don't see why non-autoconfirmed users should edit these.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 04:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ferien (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Cross-wiki sockpuppetry and self-promotionEdit

Hello Simple English Wikipedia,

I'm mhawk10, an editor who mostly makes changes on the English Wikipedia. Over the past week, I have discovered that somebody has been using multiple accounts to make changes to Wikipedia. These changes are promotional in nature and have led to several sockpuppets being blocked on the English Wikipedia. The investigation, with checkuser results, can be found here. One of the confirmed sockpuppets is Bruhking56om. All of these sockpuppets wrote drafts and hijacked articles to advertise "Rajesh Kumar Ram" (a.k.a. "Devilraj"), an Indian musician who appears to fall quite short of notability guidelines.

After being blocked as a promotion-only account on the English Wikipedia, Bruhking56om has made changes to the Simple English Wikipedia. These changes were to Devilraj. After I asked for the deletion of Devilraj, the user removed the deletion request. The user also removed a quick deletion request placed by Gotanda on that page.

The user has violated Simple English Wikipedia's rules by (1) making a promotional article about himself, (2) removing a quick deletion notice from a page that they created, and (3) removing a request for deletion notice on that article after it was nominated for deletion. The user is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for being a promotion-only account and is a confirmed sockpuppet. WP:ONESTRIKE says that users blocked indefinitely on other Wikipedias can be blocked if they break the rules here even once. For these reasons, I request that the user be blocked indefinitely, since the user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mhawk10 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for reporting, --Ferien (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ferien: Thank you for your swift action. Would you also be willing to block Ofcl devilraj, who was   Confirmed to Bruhking56om by a checkuser in this sockpuppet investigation on the English Wikipedia? The user's user page is a promotional piece about "Devilraj", so that account has disrupted SimpleWiki too. Mhawk10 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure, also   Done per onestrike. --Ferien (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Flood requestEdit

I request a one-hour flood flag so I can fix a repetitive typo in species articles in Scinax without swamping the new changes list. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done - thanks for helping out. Griff (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Ha. I'm the one who put the typo there to begin with. To be fair, it doesn't show up in the visible part of the article here on SEWP, so it's likely no readers were affected. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Bot at work againEdit

Place names by bot again. This is a pest because the bot runs over any existing pages, and puts up standard items, thus missing unusual things which a person might note. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this about? Is there a specific bot that is being used? Griff (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Griffinofwales, I think what Mac is referring to is the creation of articles about places in Europe (mostly France), as shown in the contribs of Special:Contributions/2A02:21B0:644C:7E57:B188:5ACF:C05A:461F. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Please notify an administrator if you notice the behaviour resuming. In the meantime, I've notified the user in question about this thread. Griff (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Griffinofwales: This appears to be User:Gay Yong Hernandez, so I have blocked the range for block evasion, as before. --IWI (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Static row numbersEdit

Can we have en:Template:Static row numbers? I think it would be helpful for a List of largest cities (here). Lights and freedom (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Also these templates:
  Done - thanks for all your work on the wiki. Let me know if you need anything else. Griff (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this needs to be imported too: en:Template:Static row numbers/styles.css Lights and freedom (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done as well. I appreciate you working on this. Griff (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Bot running?Edit

I think is running a bot through the wiki, putting up pages with short dicdefs. The question is, do we mind this? Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The wording isn't copied from anywhere online, so I don't think it could be a bot. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Lights and freedom: It doesn't have to be copied from somewhere to be a bot. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a similar editing pattern on enWP but I don't know if its truly automated or just repetitive similar edits. I know some of the articles have been nominated for RFD so if the pattern continues, I'm okay with enforcement action being taken per ENGAGE. Griff (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
User was not notified of AN discussion, as such, I have notified them on their talk page. I noticed that they created articles about subjects that we already have an article of, such as September 11th terrorist attacks and Gas planet (both of which are now redirects). — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
It wouldn't be bad if these stubs were of decent quality, but they are not. They often use complex vocabulary. There can be some editorializing. Sorry if I clogged up the RfD. I had not seen this discussion. I think the cost of tracking these down and letting complex language increase outweighs any potential usefulness. Gotanda (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Here is another poor example. Garden-city movement does match EnWP for naming and the accuracy of the contents is questionable. It would seem to be time to put the breaks on. Gotanda (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I saw that too and they are all using the edit summary of “Added.” It does seem a little suspicious to me. They also seem to throttle it to avoid hitting any flags. I also noticed a lot of these are coming over with invalid cats which tells me something is not quite right with it. Just wanted to add my pennies. PotsdamLamb (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  Blocked for one week due to lack of communication, inserting of original research, and use of complicated text. enWP is having issues with the user as well with no communication either. If this editing pattern continues, please bring it back to AN. Griff (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Change to Area Codes Template Calls and one other proposalEdit

I was wondering if a change can be made to templates. For example, most cities and counties now have more than one area code, however, when using {{Template:Infobox U.S. county}} and you put in more than one area code, it displays as "Area Code" which is grammatically incorrect, as it should be "Area Codes". I am not sure if an if statement can be made to add the "s" if more than one is entered or if hlist is used? To see an example, look at the Chesterfield County, South Carolina info box. I appreciate the feedback and input on this.

The second topic: The county government. I have inserted into the leader's field the government type (i.e. County Council) and then under leaders, I would hlist the names of the council members. This would not show up on the infobox or anywhere on the page. Example in coding at Allendale County, South Carolina. I did notice when I dove into the template it is listed all the way at the bottom in some sort of IF statement with a bunch of other fields.

Again, thank you in advance for your comments and ideas and I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion on this. PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes, I think we can and should implement both changes, which are simply reflecting enWP standards. However, I have no idea why the templates are acting this way and the latest version of Infobox US County didn't fix it. Perhaps Djsasso would know? I might play around with it a little later, but I think it'll take some more wiki know-how than I possess. Griff (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't have all the answers, but I was able to come up with a couple of fixes. For situation A, I changed the infobox to say Area code(s). I couldn't find any example on enWP of an IF statement being used in this way, even on the complicated infoboxes. For situation B, changing the parameter to leader_name and then using the parameters within the hlist template seems to have fixed the issue. Let me know if you have any further problems, Griff (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Griffinofwales It looks great for the area codes, or shall I say area code(s). Thank you very much. For the "B" portion, when I look at Allendale County, South Carolina, that box is all sorts of screwy if you look at the layout. I believe it should look more like Geneva, Illinois does for that infobox section. I updated Chesterfield County, South Carolina, and it took correctly with the citations. Do you think I need to redo Allendale County? PotsdamLamb (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly not seeing much of a visual difference between the 3 infoboxes, but it could just be my display settings. If you do find a fix that makes it look better for you, feel free to implement it. Griff (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Funland and cross-wiki edit warringEdit

On April 27th, the IP editor created the article Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware). At first, it had no content, save for an infobox with only the title of the article repeated. Later the editor added content from the English Wikipedia article at that time. The article as then tagged for QD under the A3 criteria. This was undone by the IP editor, claiming that the article's prose is simple enough. I tried to stubify the article in this revision, and explain to the editor about the things that needed to be simplified. In addition, I pointed out that the contents of the article are not encyclopedic. My edit was reverted, and no significant simplification was done. The page has more or less stayed the same since.

While this may be seen as content dispute, I'm taking this to the administrator's noticeboard, as I see this as a cross-wiki attempt at edit warring. On the English Wikipedia, the IP editor had edit warred on the corresponding article, before being blocked. Since the block, they have changed to an IPv6 address, as admitted here. They have continued to restore the less simple and uncyclopedic version here.

I disclose that I am involved in the English Wikipedia discussion about the article, and I had reported the editor to the English Wikipedia's edit warring noticeboard, before the article there ended up being semi-protected indefinitely. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 04:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wanna put this out there for any administrator that reads this. What I'm doing isn't meant to be edit warring. All I'm trying to do is make sure that this article contains all the important information about the park. I did create the page as I thought it would be helpful for the people to learn bout the park. When the page was created, it was blank for a moment, as it wouldn't allow me to save it with the content in there, so I had to save it, then add the content in and re save it. Not sure why that happened, but it did. The quick deletion was requested due to having nothing on the page which was understandable, so after I got the material in there, I did remove it. While I was shocked that it was put in that short period of time, I understand and respect that a blank page has no use on a Wikipedia page.
I was told the article that was originally published had too advanced working, so I went through it and replaced all the words that I thought was too complex to more simple words. The version that was reverted to above, removed everything from the article except the first paragraph. All the important information about the park including the History, Tickets, Rides and Haunted Mansion sections were all removed. I had said this on the article talk page, but I'll say it here as well, I have no problem if people wanna simplify the wording on the page, while keeping the sections intact, but there's no point in an article if all it has a a single paragraph and that's it.
I also want to point out that I don't have a COI with the park in any way, as I'm just huge fan of it, and am super knowledgeable about the park. Based on conversation with the reporting editor, as well as other editors on the Wikipedia article talk page, I don't feel like any of these editors know anything about the park at all, besides reading what I had put in the article. As such, I don't see how they can judge what's important and what's not.
I admit the ticket section could be changed to a chart to make it look more polished, and I was planning on doing that, but I've been waiting to fix that till I can fix it with this article and the Wikipedia article at the same time. This is currently not possible due to the Wikipedia article being protected, however whenever it's open again, I will make the correction to make both of them look a bit more polished. In the meantime, I've been and plan on mainly just focusing on updating the ride chart, any typos and grammatical errors I had missed and not noticed from when I originally wrote the article, and any small updates that the page needs based on info we learn that is important for the article.
I mean no harm to anybody or the article by making these corrections. I just wanna make sure Funland gets the credit the park deserves. I'm sorry the other editors disagree with me on this, but I sincerely think it's really hard for people that never either heard or been to a place to judge what's important, and what's not. Thank you for your time, and let me know if you have any further questions. 2600:4040:21D4:700:D479:2C25:168A:3FC2 (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Having reviewed all the linked discussions and the comments made here, I endorse the decision made at enWP regarding the article. While the stub version is not preferred, the article in its current state covers topics that are not relevant to a Wikipedia article about an amusement park, and gives UNDUE weight to the Haunted Mansion. It does not appear that that ride is notable enough for its own article or the 7 lengthy paragraphs devoted to it. If no other objections are raised, I endorse stubbifying the article or at the very least dropping to one paragraph per section with the removal of the Tickets section. If edit warring occurs, I also recommend an immediate page protection. Any other thoughts? Griff (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the your response, and being so polite in this manner. Can you please clarify what topics in the is article that aren't relevant to amusement parks? In my opinion, and this could be inaccurate, as I''m fairly new to editing and creating articles, the sections in the article are common for most or at least some amusement parks. I'll elaborate to explain why I feel this way. Feel free to contradict or correct me for anything that is inarticulately stated here.
The History section is from what I've experienced from reading a decent amount of articles, in pretty much every article. In Funland's case, I put the history of the park, as well as their operating hours for the season. Not sure if the hours should be in that section, or if that deserves it's own section. Don't see any other articles talking bout the hours for other parks, but I still feel like knowing the hours for a park is good information for readers to know in case they ever want to go to any park. Would this part be better in it's own section though, rather than the History section? I can change that if that would be preferred.
The Tickets section I feel is important due to the cheapness of the park, from when it opened, and even now. I was able to find an article that had a ticket section similar to this, but in a chart. Her's the reference I'm talking about After looking at it, and agreeing that a chart would likely be better fort this section, and would take much less space, I'd much rather wait and only have to create and edit the chart once rather than twice as twice makes way more work for me, opposed to only having to do it once. This is cause I'd fix the section in the Wikipedia article as well. I was planning on fixing it in the Wikipedia article and here already, but before I could, the other article got protected, so I've been waiting for the protected page to re open so I can take care of fixing both at the same time.
The Rides and Attractions I think is good due to it telling the readers what rides Funland has, when they came to Funland, the type of ride they are, and how many tickets they cost to ride. While writing this response, I realized it makes more sense just to call the section Rides, vs. Rides and Attractions, so I just fixed the name. I'm not sure if Ride Type of Attraction Type sounds better for the chart though. Please let me know what you think and we can make a decision from there. Can't remember if I saw a section like this for other parks, but I think if they don't have this, they should, as a chart like this is very helpful to readers to know what rides, a park has.
This leads me to the Haunted Mansion section, which is yes, the biggest section in the article. This is due to it being the ride that Funland is most known for, and is the reason a lot of dark ride enthusiasts come to Funland, just to check out and ride this ride. This is why I put a ride through in the article. That's what takes up most of the paragraph. The Haunted Mansion might be notable enough for it's own article, and I had thought about creating it, but up until this point, I haven't create a page for it. This ride is ranked in the top 10 dark ride lists by DAFE (Dark Attractions and Fun House Enthusiasts), which is a non profit organization that judges dark rides and fun houses. Over the course of multiple years, it had remained in the top 10 list. Here's evidence of this so you can verify what I'm saying It was also touted by Bret Malone, who is another dark ride expert. Here's my evidence on this On top of this, the Haunted Mansion also has multiple articles online talking about how great it is. Here's a few articles to verify this claim,, and Based on all of this, this is why I think that the ride through is important for the article, and why that section is so long.
These are my reasons for why each section currently look the way they do. Please let me know why you disagree, if you disagree with any of this, and lets try to come to a resolution that makes everybody feel heard and respected. Thank you so much for your time, and sorry for this reply being so long. 2600:4040:21D4:700:ADAC:1EE1:D164:1CE2 (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Before agreeing or disagreeing to your claims, we need to you stop copypasting categories from ENWP. Some of them are too complex and not suitable to this wiki. Try to use categories that we already have. In addition, please stop removing tags from the article. They are needed to clarify the issues in the page. MathXplore (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I was just trying to make sure the article had the right categories. Didn't realize they might've been too complex for Simple Wikipedia. I just thought those categories hadn't been created yet on Simple Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing this out and bringing this to my attention. I'll stop trying to duplicate the categories. 2600:4040:21D4:700:1448:F233:BEBC:D9EB (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  Trimmed back to a version similar to enWP. That version should be considered the "stable" version and any substantial changes should be discussed on the talk page. This will be enforced via page protection if necessary. I will address the points related to content on there. Griff (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the alert, just wish my points were addressed before action was taken. 2600:4040:21D4:700:D587:5E7A:28C6:17A8 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
For the IPv6 editor, I recommend creating an account then we can ping you directly with questions. As the administrator stated the conversation has been moved to the talk page but as an IP editor, we cannot mention you so it slows down the discussion. Hopefully you create an account. PotsdamLamb (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up and information. I''l keep that in mind. 2600:4040:21D4:700:D587:5E7A:28C6:17A8 (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

FIPS CodesEdit

Hello Admins - In infoboxes (i.e. settlement, state, etc.} the link in the infobox goes to a subdomain and that subdomain no longer exists. Instead, you can go to QuickFacts Columbia city, South Carolina, though, it appears you can find only the population but doesn't give us all the information we need.

Perhaps someone can change the link to that or if they find something else better that would work for now. But all of the links for FIPS are broken throughout the site from what I can see browsing those pages. Thanks! :) PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I just imported the latest version of the FIPS template and it appears everything is working correctly. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Griff (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Griffinofwales Thank you. I have noticed it is not taking though. Here is an example from yesterday Geneva, Illinois. The FIPS code is not linked. I am not sure if it is template related or not or maybe I put the FPIPS code in the wrong area? PotsdamLamb (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it worked before the latest template update but when I compared Geneva, IL to our article on Chicago, our Chicago article used a FIPS template within the infobox. Interestingly enough, enWP's Geneva, IL article also has the same problem that we had, but it also doesn't use the FIPS template. I have updated our article, but if this issue is elsewhere, it might need a AWB task to fix them all. Griff (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protection request - Weekly Shōnen JumpEdit

Can someone please protect [Weekly Shōnen Jump] due to numerous vandalism attempts? Operator873 has globally blocked the IP address, but there are others engaging in this behavior on this article. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done for a month. Thank you! Griff (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protection request - masturbationEdit

Could somebody protect masturbation? Most of the recent edits are users reverting vandalism, even I had to revert an undetected self-promotion from a year ago. Lallint (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done by Eptalon for 6 months. Thanks for the report. Griff (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
He unprotected it right after Lallint (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protection request - Salah Eddine SaadouniEdit

Can we get Salah Eddine Saadouni protected until the RFD expires please? IPs are back removing the RfD header. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Salt RequestEdit

Since the article Ali Tajdary has now been deleted four times can we get it salted, please? Two of the deletions were failures at RfD. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


Why is Simple English Wikipedia not protected from IP changes? Just curious. PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is only one wiki protected from IP changes: the Portuguese Wikipedia. Some other wikis prevents IPs from creating new pages, like the English Wikipedia, mostly because the project has become so big that the community can hardly clean-up all vandalism. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I think PotsdamLamb meant the article Simple English Wikipedia. It has a lot of vandalism. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Lights and freedom@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Yes L&F is correct. I am talking about the actual page, not the project. If that would be the case, then the project would be moot. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Huh. Sleepy-me thought this was WP:ST. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  Done Semi-protected for a month. --Ferien (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ferien Shouldn't this be permanent and only allow admin changes? PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb: protection is rarely done indefinitely, and I have never seen full editing protection used here, apart from during an edit war. --Ferien (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly recreated pageEdit

Oscareduardo10 (YouTuber) is being repeatedly recreated, always as an article about a YouTube channel with no claim of notability. Page protection may be needed. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my User talk) 23:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted again, and salted for a month. Thanks for the report. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Farhad GarashovEdit

Hello admins, I feel a speedy delete needs to override Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Farhad Garashov due to the facts listed by an EN admin on the bottom sections. I looked at and it definitely fits the block evasions and farm. This was also their RfD on EN

Thank you. I also sent in a CU request for this user as well. PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer RfDs are never closed early to give everyone a chance to participate, unless it clearly meets QD criteria, like A1. !Votes from socks can be always be struck and the closing admin will notice. --Ferien (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand but all the keeps are from the sock or canvassing. Everyone else is a deny. Clearly a Snowball IMO. PotsdamLamb (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Protection request - Digital marketingEdit

Digital marketing - been getting excessive spamming lately. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 21:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done The number of changes isn't high enough to protect at this time: 3 changes today, 2 yesterday, 4 the day before, then none before that since back in April. (Those change counts include the rollbacks.) I've added it to my watchlist. Report again if it gets worse. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protection - ObscenityEdit

Obscenity is tagged as being protected but the page is not protected. A decision needs to be made whether to protect it or remove the protection template. Ther are multiple pages in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates that also either need protection or need to have the tag removed. Pure Evil (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pure Evil: That usually means that the page used to be protected, maybe temporarily, but isn't any more. You can remove the templates in those cases. I actually think those templates sometimes get added when they aren't needed: not every protected page needs the template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The page was protected for the a year in late May 2021. The protection ran out a couple weeks ago and it was vandalized today, twice. As it is a likely target for vandalism to the point an admin felt the need to protect it long term in the past and it has been vandalized shortly after that protection lapsed, this is more of a matter for admins to decide if that protection is still needed. Pure Evil (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I also see it a lot when editors copy things over from en wiki. I believe (and Auntof6 can correct me) but we have a category that shows which pages have the pp on them but are not actually protected. If we do and there are a lot of them, a quick AWB will handle that instead of doing each one individually. PotsdamLamb (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
That would be the category that was listed in the original post. Only 25 entrees in it but this one is the one that just came off protection, was vandalized today and has a good probability of move vandalism to come. Things like India have been off protection since 2020 and only have 10 or so reverted edits since February so that is not likely an issue. This has been off protection for a couple weeks and vandalism has restarted so it may need to be looked at Either way, it is up to an admin to make the call on whether to reapply protection or just remove the tag. Pure Evil (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  Done - Looks like the category got cleared out. It does show as an administrative backlog when it gets bad, I just haven't had time recently to work through those. Griff (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Local ImageEdit

If I remember correctly images are not allowed to be stored on simple, they have to be on commons. I found this one today. PotsdamLamb (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That file is not actually hosted here. What you see is simply a mirror of the file from Commons. Griff (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you tell the difference as the url shows it’s on simple not commons? I’m just curious. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The box that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." is an indicator. The fact that is is not list in the files namespace on Special:All pages also works. Pure Evil (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pure Evil Gotcha! So basically if it is on that page, then it is hosted on simple and not commons? Am I understanding that correctly? PotsdamLamb (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Special:AllPages will list all pages on the wiki in a given namespace. the list defaults to the article namespace, but it can be changed to look at any namespace. Looking at the page, all but one entry is an .ogg version of a local page. There is one .svg file in there but it does not seem to be an actual image. Probably could be deleted anyway as it doesnt do anything and nothing links to it. Pure Evil (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  Deleted - We should be good now :) Griff (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protection - Slash (punctuation)Edit

Slash (punctuation) has nothing but vandalism and reverts in the recent changes.Lallint (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done--Eptalon (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Iranian peoplesEdit

The article Iranian peoples is being reverted daily. I went through the article multiple time cleaning up formatting, random bolding and CAPITALIZATION, excessive referencing, etc. Each time an IP reverted the changes and added more issues to the article. Each time I or a bot have reverted back to a reasonably clean copy. While anyone is free to correct errors or expand the information in nearly any article, the constant vigil of clearing out bad form needs to be looked at. An admin needs to step in and decide how to handle this situation. The sources section still needs cleaned up to limit it to things that are actually used to support the imformation. It seems the original poster included any source they could find that mentioned a group was Iranian and not just those used to back up the facts of the article. For the most part, a bibliography should just contain the books used in the inline references. Occasional exceptions will exist but this is far from occasional and bordering on obsessive. Pure Evil (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pure Evil I am sorry you are going through this. I once too went through it with an IP. I would do the following:
  1. Issue the warnings on their talk page so you meet the requirements for requesting a block.
  2. I would ask for page protection for 30 days so if you decide to clean it up, you will not be interrupted by IPs doing more damage.
Just my thoughts. PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I just toss the whole thing to the admins to figure out what to do with it then wash my hands of the whole situation. Its not worth the headache of dealing with it personally. I saw an issue, I alerted the needed parties. My job is done. No stress, no sweat and no hassle. Pure Evil (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pure Evil Cool PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I absolutely agree this article is a mess, and needs to be looked at, but the Wikipedia way of editing is through discussion. The BRD cycle refers to making bold changes, which, then if reverted (as happened), are discussed. Since our project is smaller, sometimes posting to ST to get more attention also helps. If one party (in this case, the IP) ignores the discussion and continues to push their side, that is where administrators get involved. We, as administrators, are not here to mediate content disputes, we trust the community as a whole to do so. When one side fails to respect the decision of the community, then we are here to get involved. Soo.. all that being said, as an administrator, I see no immediate action that needs to be taken by me. As an editor, I'm going to comment on the discussion thread currently on the talk page, invite all interested parties (PotsdamLamb, do you think you could weigh in?), and we can come together to decide what to do. Once that is done, if someone fails to follow that decision, we can look at other measures. Just my two cents, Griff (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Griffinofwales Sure give me a bit to go through the mess of the history. They have (not this specific IP) done that with other articles, and I like @Pure Evil just gave up for the time being. Too many external links but no citations, but a majority of the links are not NPOV. Thanks and I will get back to you shortly. One thing I could recommend is to prohibit IPs for a couple of days to get the article back in order and in compliance with WP so we can go from there without an edit war. PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, this is part of a much bigger issue that's been going on for a while. Here are some other articles with the same citation bombing issues:
List of articles
Going back the history of some of these articles, I note that there is a bit of editor overlap:
Editor interaction tool.
There are cases where one of the registered users would revert a rollback done by ChenzwBot (such as here and here), which strikes me as odd.
I have to go soon, these are my findings so far. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed a similar pattern during my initial research. Other than ref bombing with POV references, have any of you noticed other violations of editing policies or guidelines? We may have to use a broad approach to clean up all articles. I suspect this is connected to a LTA (probably from enWP) that we haven't been able to name yet. Griff (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


Griff I am sure they are all related. We can always check the meta and see if any of the IPs come up or even search on enWP for the IPs. We can’t request a fishing expedition so I’m sure between the 3 of us we can do/find something that links them due to the same patterns in editing. PotsdamLamb (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

So I did a little backtrack on the IPs (only 4 but show a pattern). I’m thinking we are back to dealing with a bot again as the changes to these articles are almost every one minute. We may need to block them.
* Ankara, Turkey
* Istanbul,Turkey
* Istanbul, Turkey
* Ankara, Turkey

PotsdamLamb (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb @Griffinofwales Digging up enwiki, I found en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Araxes_TheThief/Archive - there are some overlaps here. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 04:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fehufanga: The IPs all come back to the same areas. Istanbul and Ankara. So I think that is the correct person/people. So we do have cross-wiki abuse. I can file it for global blocking and see what they say. I’ll post the link to the report here when I finish eating and getting it filed. *tosses cookies to Fehufanga* PotsdamLamb (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I have informed each of those IPs of the consensus that has been reached. Editing in violation of that consensus could be seen as violations of the CON and NPOV policies, and at the very least, may result in additional page protection and/or a namespace/full block against the account. If you report to VIP/AN, please reference the notice they received from me to help the investigating administrator. Thanks, Griff (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI I put it off wiki to a sys op. I’ll let everyone know what happens but I’m pretty sure repercussions will happen. PotsdamLamb (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The report can be found here. Feel free to add anything you feel is needed. I already directed them to this discussion and to the SP on enWiki. PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Page Protection - Iranian peoplesEdit

Can someone please protect Iranian peoples so there is no further damage to the article from the sock farm? PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done for one week to address the long-term abuse pointed out above. This is simply to give time for editors to get the article to a "stable" state. Any further abuse can be looked at after that. Griff (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Change request for WP:COIEdit

My recent changes at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest were reverted so I'm requesting consensus for my changes here.

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest.


Change "If you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to out them" to: "if you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to expose them."


Change lead "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is when an editor wants to do something which does not help Wikipedia's goal..." to: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is when an editor is directly involved in a subject of a page. For example, an editor may be an employee at a company and edit the page on their company. Someone with a COI may want to do something which does not help Wikipedia's goal..."

Posted at WP:AN for visibility. (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with your changes:
  1. Expose has multiple meanings and since this is simple wikipedia, out has less meanings to figure it out.
  2. The idea of simple is to keep sentences short and understandable. The example you gave (and the reason I reverted your changes) is it is too long for a non-native English speaker/reader to possibly understand.
Thank you for bringing this over to here for discussion. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
About 1, "out" is generally understood to mean "away from". Maybe this could be better: " must be careful not to reveal their COI."
And 2 is basically an explanation of what a COI is. Maybe there can be an explanation of a COI that is also simple enough for readers to understand, but I haven't come up with anything for that yet. (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
For point 1, I don't like the alternative, however we need to link those words back to the enWP policies, because "out" isn't a simple to understand term. I would actually prefer something else that is specific and not ambiguous (are "reveal" or "show" any better?) As for point 2, I actually agree with the change. The lede as described is not an accurate reflection of what a COI is. If we want to simplify it further, simply remove the second sentence in the proposed change, but I strongly support making the change overall. Griff (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
In spite of what you were told, I think this discussion would be better at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, not here. This doesn't require admin action. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Auntof6 I figured it would get a lot more visibility here. Maybe simple talk would be good for these types of discussions to get input from the community? A lot of people don’t look at or follow guideline or policy pages or their respective talk pages other than (mostly) admins. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 04:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb: The usual procedure is to have the discussion on the relevant talk page so that there's a record there, but publicize it at Simple talk because many people watch that page. The admins noticeboard is for things that require admin action, which this does not. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok gotcha. Thanks! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 04:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Salt Request - Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-chanEdit

Since this page has been recreated 3 times in 9 days, can we salt it so it does not show up again please? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 01:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not really sure it is at the point where we need to salt. In fact, I really do not agree that we should be deleting this using G4 at all. The original RfD was quickly deleted for copyright, so it really was not deleted as a result of an RfD the first time, and it was quickly deleted at RfD the 2nd time too. If the article is posted again with the copyright content, it should be deleted for G12. If it is recreated without the copyright content, and we still want to delete it, it should go back to RfD.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Gordonrox24 Sounds fair to me. Thanks for your input. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 02:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protection - MinecraftEdit

Minecraft has far too much vandalism from IP users and users with red-linked user pages, I suggest semi-protection until, I'd say, 2024 Lallint (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done Only one vandal edit this month, I see no reaon to protect right now, definitely not until 2024 as the vandalism has only got worse since the start of this year. --Ferien (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protection - The Amazing World of GumballEdit

The past month alone The Amazing World of Gumball had several unconstructive edits from unregistered users. Overall if you look at the history, it has a large amount of unregistered edits that are not constructive. Protection for a few weeks (maybe 1 month) might be needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done - In my opinion, the article is not experiencing the serious and repeated vandalism required by the protection policy. While there has been vandalism this month (3 unique users), the overall trend is about 1 once every 25 days over the last 6 months, which is easily managed by members of the New Changes Patrol. If the amount of vandalism increases, please let us know. Thanks, Griff (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Move over redirectEdit

Could someone swap National Day (article) and National day (redirect)? It is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. The matching category (Category:National Days) would also need a similar treatment. Pure Evil (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Protection Request, September 11 attacks & Oxford High School ShootingEdit

I think both of these should be semi-protected. (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

We would like to hear about reasons for protection. MathXplore (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Both   Not done
September 11 attacks - no recent vandalism. Last vandal edit was a month ago
Oxford High School shooting - page was just created and there has only been one vandal edit earlier today --Ferien (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The reason i feel these articles should be protected is because
1. Oxford is a current event it is being investigated and should be left alone until investigation ends
2. 9/11 is a (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
You don't seem to have finished explaining your second reason, but your first one is not a reason to protect an article. Articles can be protected if they are being vandalized so much by multiple users that it's hard to keep up with reverting the vandalism. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh okay well whatever thanks (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Mass protectionEdit

There was another batch of vandalism today aimed at cleansing the world of Harry Potter of Hermione Granger. Looking at the article hit by the current vandal account (here), it seems this is has been an ongoing occurrence since April. The bulk of edits to these page since April are just endless reverts. Prior protection was already used, so the issue started before this. It has only gotten worse in June with multiple attacks. It may be best to semi-protect that entire batch of Harry potter articles for a time. It is a shame that a reverse cascade semi lock does not exist. Slap that on the nav template and they are all protected at one go Pure Evil (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I would go with more than auto confirmed user because the sockpuppet will just create another account and such. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
By using semi protection, spur of the moment vandalism is dealt with. The vandal would have to plan ahead and wait 4 day to so anything. Even if the mass create accounts, once one is active and defined as a vandal, a quick checkuser look could ferret out the other accounts. It could be worked around but it would take a lot of effort and most likely a vandal like this is not going to jump through all the hoops needed to evade it for more than a very short time. Pure Evil (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I imagine the vandalism would not just stop on the pages with the navbox on. They are just going to move onto other pages I think. Re: PotsdamLamb's comment about more than semi-protection, the only step above semi-protected is admin and admin protection is not appropriate here. I will point out that when this person edits they are usually reverted quickly and SWMT members might notice within minutes as well. They are often blocked and globally locked very quickly too. It's annoying to deal with constantly but I don't think it is better to have all the pages about Harry Potter/Hermione Granger protected. I am not a technical person but I believe an abuse filter could be made to help prevent some of the vandalism - for obvious reasons, I won't go into too much detail about that here. --Ferien (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I got to several of these edits after they had been sitting there for over an hour. Some of the earlier vandalism was dealt with but a majority of it was left unchecked. While not much an urgent issue with this type of vandalism compared to more vicious vandalism such as personal attacks, hate based , doccing and such, "within minutes" was not the case. The abuse filters are better equip to deal with additions of questionable information than a minor removal here and there. Most bots would not even flag this type of activity other than mass edits by an account/ip in a short time frame which could be legit and not something to set a bot on. Pure Evil (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ferien I did put in a CU request so if they can block the ip (hopefully) it will work. I’ll bring up the filter off line with you. @Pure Evil We did a rollback but as you know we can’t get all of them. I have started working with a sys op on this fix as well. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 23:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, you can. It only took a few moments once it was noticed that they were undoing anti-vandalism work to Harry Potter articles to pull up their contributions and and roll back every revert of a trusted editor they did. Right click the rollback, open in new tab, go to the next and repeat then close all the tabs you just opened. You can undo all their work faster than they can created it for the most part. Just have to be certain you are using rollback only to deal with vandalism. That is fairly easy in cases like this. Pure Evil (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pure Evil I am aware of that. However, I gave up until someone blocked them then they did the mass revert. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

J-Pimp is backEdit

The latest article on the "artist" known as J-pimp has reached out shores as Joél (musician). This topic has been deleted multiple times in the past:

G4 is most likely applicable, but the article would need to be looked at by someone who can see deleted articles to confirm its similarity. Pure Evil (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's gone. All the content in the Joel Filsaime article was in the newest article, very similar. --Ferien (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ferien Are they appropriate for salting? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 23:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
PotsdamLamb for Joél (musician), not yet because it has only been created once. --Ferien (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


Chobblesome (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Protect until the end of the RfD pleass PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 11:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done by Eptalon. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 19:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge with no contestEdit

I believe this would be a no contest merge. Can we merge Monkeypox into Monkeypox virus. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done "Monkeypox" and the "Monkeypox virus" are quite different things. The "monkeypox virus" is the virus while "monkeypox" is the disease. --Ferien (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Monkeypox is caused by the monkeypox virus so I get it. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)