User talk:BangJan1999/Archives/2023/January
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Adermakh
BangJan1999 Well, after blocking him, I will send you a reminder that he is a vandal. Two of his accounts have already been blocked.
It's not my fault that this case has dragged on for so long. He creates new accounts and wants to leave behind more fake articles.--Товболатов (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
WikiEditor1234567123 — Blocked forgery of information, conducting edit wars.--Товболатов (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hope Church
Hi BangJan1999. I'm not surprised that someone challenged the speedy deletion given how long the page has already been on Wikipedia. I am curious what you believe the credible assertion of importance or significance to be? Your response may help me decide whether to take it to PROD or AFD next - or maybe I'm missing something.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mojo Hand: I just don't believe that the article is speedyable in its current state. I would be fine with using other deletions methods but that's entirely up to you. BangJan1999 00:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, BangJan1999,
Just for future instances, when you tag a page for speedy deletion, CSD G5, you need to add the name of the sockmaster, not the sockpuppet. If it isn't clear, you can ask the admin or checkuser who blocked the account. The purpose of this information is so if the admin who reviews the page has questions, they can go look at the original SPI case for verification that G5 applies. Knowing that an account is a sockpuppet doesn't provide verification necessary for CSD G5 which is not actually for sockpuppetry but for block evasion by the original sockmaster. Just being a multiple account or sockpuppet doesn't call for CSD G5 page deletion if there is no evidence of block evasion occurring. It's a little tricky and frequently misunderstood so I hope I explained it clearly enough. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Debian architectures
Hello BangJan1999, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Debian architectures, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Pageviews suggest this is a useful redirect. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Useful for not, G5 still applies to that page. Feel free to recreate it later if you want. BangJan1999 16:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Don't restore speedy deletion tags after they've been declined. It has long been convention here that by banned users evading a sanction may be reverted, however contributions deemed to be constructive may be "adopted" by a user in good standing. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Fair enough, although I'm still not happy with a user known for long-term abuse being associated with said redirect. Would it be possible for a page like this to be deleted, then recreated immediately after with no modifications so that the user in question is forever un-associated with said page? BangJan1999 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I also don't love it. I'd have to say no: technically our license requires that we give credit to all contributors, and if we deleted the redirect just to recreate it again with the same content in order to remove the banned account's name from it, it would probably violate the license. On the other hand a redirect is probably not sufficient to qualify for copyright in the first place. It's definitely not my area of expertise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Fair enough, although I'm still not happy with a user known for long-term abuse being associated with said redirect. Would it be possible for a page like this to be deleted, then recreated immediately after with no modifications so that the user in question is forever un-associated with said page? BangJan1999 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Don't restore speedy deletion tags after they've been declined. It has long been convention here that by banned users evading a sanction may be reverted, however contributions deemed to be constructive may be "adopted" by a user in good standing. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
User Ritesh9039 talk page
Please reconsider your revert of Ritesh9039's removal of my warnings at [1]. They are allowed to remove the warnings (see WP:BLANKING), but it's interpreted that they have read and are aware of the warnings. From their discussion on my talk page, I'm not hopeful that they will actually change their behavior, but that's for the next time. Which will probably be to ask the domain be added to the spam blacklist as it turns out another user was spamming the same blog in mid-2022. If they want to remove the warnings, sure, let 'em. It's still in the history and the total picture of their edits show an undeclared COI/Paid editing happening and that will trip them up soon enough. Ravensfire (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)