User talk:Tamzin/Archive/1

May 2021

Hello Tamzin, thanks for the feedback.

I can see why you think that it looks like an edit war, but it's actually not one, because it's different details, with me taking into account what George has previously said, and different reasons being given by George. So that's why you can actually see that George wasn't angrily critical.

Whenever George disagrees, and I also disagree with his disagreement, because I consider my view more logical, I always take it to the talk page to clear it up with him. You can take a gander, man, we have filled up the whole talk page lol.

However, as mentioned, I often make changes taking into account what George has previously said, because sometimes I think of an addition/edition and George has not replied to my talk comments yet, so my hands are being tied.

Also, this had made me a little upset with George, because I've noticed that, now, he often gives vague reasons for his objections, and sometimes seemingly confusing reasons, like talking about "term/event" even though it doesn't really apply, or that he ought to know better since it had previously been discussed.

It's not good that they are often so vague. They are vague and confusing to me, and to others, they paint an inaccurate picture of what's going on, so it's a double-whammy. And you were also guilty of that haha, not specifying that it was the description

So now, I'm gonna have to continue asking George on the talk page to clarify just exactly what he means when he objects to edits. And so, by following our chain of conversation, you can also see that the edits aren't controversial, it's just that George seems to have so many reasons to revert edits, often vague, unclear, or unconvincing reasons, for some reason.

I think you actually didn't have to AGF, instead, I think the most important thing is that you should have looked into the details first. Unfortunately, there's no quick-n'-easy way to do it, like, just look at how much ink we've spilled on the talk page, I don't like it, but I have to go the long and hard way with George, it's necessary, and to try to clarify his vague reasonings.

Though yeah, you do raise good points about me, and I'll take your advice into account, thank you

Also, now I understand why you were mistakenly brusque, and it's actually a relief, because when I first saw your revert, and how recent it was, I was wondering if you were weird in the same way that I find George weird haha, and now I know that you're not weird lol.

Back to the article, the main point of the article is that the Second Cold War is either a "full cold war", or more of a "cloud of tensions", or something in-between, but it's definitely a thing that is currently existing, and therefore, that's why I'm thinking that "powers of the Second Cold War" is not saying that there is an ongoing "full" Second Cold War.

So now you might start to see what looking into the details reveals, that, hey, it's not bad faith editing against consensus, it's not really an edit war, and that the caption doesn't really say that there's a "full" cold war ongoing, haha. and thanks for your understanding, good mutual dialogue Halo FC (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(Edit: changed "proper" cold war to "full" cold war) Halo FC (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Add: By the way @Tamzin:, hope I'm not bothering you, I'm not sure if I've cleared up the map caption, though if I have, I would like to say "cleared up misunderstanding with Tamzin". and well I don't really mean to get your name involved, but I would like to undo the damage, thanks Halo FC (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Halo FC: I stand by my feeling that "Powers of..." or anything like that puts too much in the encyclopedia's voice. Even to the extent that "Second Cold War" is a term used to describe things that are objectively occurring, it's not a term that everyone (or even most people) would use to describe those things. When we say "Powers of the Second Cold War" or anything like that, we are saying, "There's something happening called the Second Cold War," and I don't think the article's sources bear that out.

But this is a nuanced content issue that I don't really want to wade that far into. As long as you and George and others are talking things through on the talk page, and everyone's respecting the consensuses that are reached there, that's what matters. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 12:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: ok, I can see where you're coming from on the connotations of "Second Cold War", and I think I can clarify it a bit better. so you mentioned what everyone or most people would use, however I think that that's the key premise of the article, and so the caption is serving the article's premise as written in the intro, they're sort of integrated. And then it'd mean that, mentioning the term "Second Cold War" doesn't mean that the world is definitely in a "full cold war" right now. At the same time, I'm also happy to consider your suggestions on a better caption. Halo FC (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Add: sorry to bother you, so hope I've clarified it well, and even if you agree, I think if you wouldn't want your name to be involved, no problem it's fine Halo FC (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've also thought of a modified caption, "Three prominent powers of Second Cold War-related great power competition"

I'm also gonna add the text below to the talk section on "Term/event", hope it's not cluttering your talk page too much

I've thought of a way of thinking about the "term/event" issue. The situation or status of the Second Cold War could be a 'cloud of tensions', such a cloud being over the world, or being between the rival world powers; or it could be a 'full cold war'. We could use the acronyms 'CoT' and 'FCW'.

Now, an FCW is still very much a muted occurrence compared to a hot war. And so, it's quite a grey area as to when things go from being a CoT to an FCW, a "fuzzy" grey area between them. You could also think of it as there being a smooth gradient between a CoT and an FCW. So, it could also be something in-between the two, which is what I think is actually going on. I'll call something that's in-between a 'cloud of cold war', or 'CoCW' for short.

So I think that the article should be treated as CoCW, though I'm also open to other lines of thinking. Though to get everyone on the same page, I think the suggestion by Firejuggler86 seems quite helpful. so we can treat the status of the Second Cold War as indeterminate, and we just describe what the various sources say about its status. Halo FC (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Halo FC: This is all great stuff to talk about on Talk:Second Cold War. Like I said in my last edit, I don't have much left to say on this topic. You should use the talk page to discuss with other editors who are involved in that article. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 00:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: oh I see, as you had started with "I stand by my feeling", and then I didn't pay that close attention to your words, my apologies. so, yup, ok, noted your comments, thanks Halo FC (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Arabian sea

I had never said it should be called persian sea.no body have the right to change an international recognized name.it was insisted by other user I just added some documents to say it was called by other names and there are numerous documents in Arabic that can mentioned other names. but it is just a historical remined not anything more. I am not in favor of change of any names.you should not revert it but you can edite and delet any source you think is not reliable Basp1 (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Made me chuckle. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -- Eck (he/him) | [[User talk:Eckstasy 02:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

please don't edit people's talk pages and talk unfounded shite.

sincerely.

Eck (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, please be more civil in how you approach others. But very well. If I have an issue with your civility in the future I'll skip bringing it up with you, and go directly to administrators instead. Please do take note of the following, though:

{{ds/alert|ap}}

Eck (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eckstasy: Did you intend to copy everything I wrote? The comment of yours that concerned me was "Who writes this nonsense?" While you said you haven't directly 'personally attacked' anyone", a personal attack is still a personal attack even if you don't specify whom it's about. Now, is there a particular comment of mine that you view as having been a personal attack? Or are you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Feinberg

Hi Tamzin, this is no big deal, and I wouldn't bother correcting it at this point because it doesn't affect the weight of your argument, but in regard to this edit at the James Barry Rfc, Leslie Feinberg is, of course, trans, not cis. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Whoops, yeah, just thought it looked bad to say trans woman woman, and didn't occur to me that she was still indeed trans and a woman, just not a trans woman. At least I think that's right? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right! To say she was a "trans woman" would imply she had been AMAB, which of course, she wasn't.

(Off-topic: there's an indentation screw-up in the section above this one, which affects this section, and probably every future section on the page after this; I was looking at it trying to find it. Haven't yet, but if I can find it in the next 5-10', I'll fix it.) Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you found it; or at least, removing the AC/Ds box fixed it. I seem to remember, that pre-pending an AC/DS tempate with a colon for indentation does that. Anyway, you fixed it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, right, because you can't put a table in a list item, and MediaWiki is bad at fixing it if you try to. Eck copied it from me doing the same on his page; I really should have known better, because recently I spent like 30 minutes trying to figure out why someone else transcluding a userbox in an MfD comment had broken the "closed MfD" styling, only to learn the table/list item thing. But in this case I was trying to avoid breaking the list à la WP:*:.

You didn't need to know any of that, I'm sure, but yeah. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Heh; I seem to forget, and "relearn" that, about every 2-5 years. And btw, I *do* like that kind of explanation, so I'm glad you included it; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing quoted material

Material quoted directly from sources should not be changed, regardless of the English variation used elsewhere on the page, such as your edit here. As stated in the WP:ENGVAR guidelines you mentioned in your edit summary, quotations should be as given in the source: "a quotation from a British source should retain British spelling, even in an article that otherwise uses American spelling". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'd overlooked the context there. You didn't include an edit summary on your initial revert, so I didn't understand the rationale for it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for not leaving an edit summary as that initial revert by me was when the other editor had continued changing quotes after I left several messages for them. They have now responded on their talk page, and so I think they just didn't realize what they were doing. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@self:

Plip!

@Wallyfromdilbert: Yeah, I noticed when (belatedly) checking your contribs that it was the only one missing a summary. Bad luck that that happened to be the only one I saw, I guess, but I really should have checked for context first—I got rather annoyed when someone failed to give me the same courtesy before chastising me for {{Uw-biog4im}}ing a "new" IP, failing to check the surrounding context that made clear the IP was a sockpuppet. So, I apologize. I guess I'm just getting a bit jaded from how often I see people revert content without explanation. But that's no excuse—WP:AAGF applies—and thus I shall self-{{minnow}}. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong! It is easy to miss that a change is to a quotation, and it just happens to be one of the things I look for. I only left my message here to help if case you were not aware (especially since some spelling mistakes are fine to fix in quoted material). I always try to use an edit summary, and I should have in this case since I was not reverting clear vandalism that would have been obvious to others. It's funny that happened to be the one edit you saw! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Much love

Thanks for your assistance. Do Remain safe Tamzin. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Health note

As an editor with a mental health condition that sometimes affects their judgment, I take very seriously my duty to keep that from negatively affecting my Wikipedia activities. I haven't said or done anything on Wikipedia of late that I think indicates questionable judgment, but that's becoming a bit more difficult to maintain. While I don't think it's particularly likely I'd do something stupid and tarnish my reputation or get my permissions yanked, out of an abundance of caution I'll be taking a wikibreak until I have my meds straightened out, which might be a few days, might be a few weeks. Till then, if you post here or ping me, I'll likely still respond, but can't promise I'll be able to respond at length. Also still reachable by email or on WP:DISCORD, with the same caveat. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Best wishes. —valereee (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Smell the roses! Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Look after yourself! firefly ( t · c ) 09:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

ISIS-K

Usually I remove sections started by users who have been indeffed for related conduct, but since this contains an accusation of misconduct on my part, I'll keep it here for the sake of transparency. If any good-faith user agrees with that criticism, feel free to comment below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"ISIS controls more land than it does, calling it a current proto-state rather than a former unrecognized one, removing a well-sourced statement that it is anti-Semitic (something I'm not even sure ISIS would disagree with), and downplaying its involvement in beheadings, all comes off strongly as whitewashing. Perhaps that's not your intention, but that's certainly how it seems to me." Firstly, I never called it a "current" proto-state. Secondly, none of the source say that it's "anti-semitic". If you called it "anti-semitic" according to that source, it's anti virtually anyone. Thirdly, I did not "downplay" its involvement in beheadings. Logare (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) No, I'd overlooked the 1RR notice at that page. The first was made by script, so no notice popped up, and for the second it was just banner blindness. That said, I won't be self-reverting. Your account is clearly here to push pro-ISIS content, and I will not make the encyclopedia worse just to blindly follow a policy that was imposed to prevent disruption of the sort you cause, especially when you've given no intelligible reason to exclude the content in question. The rest of this, a) I won't dignify with a response, and b) is more suited for the article's talk page, not my user talk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Also, wait, I don't even need to rest on IAR here. You're at 2RR too. Some fucking nerve, man. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

code-switching

I'm sorry anyone has to code-switch here (or at least to code switch more than any cisgender straight white male should be required to in the workplace, which as we've seen many times some of them don't even bother with then). But, yeah. —valereee (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't think code-switching is in itself evil. As you say, everyone has to do it sometimes. Some more than others, maybe, but some of us lead lives that diverge from the mainstream more than others—sometimes by choice, sometimes due to the hands we're dealt. I do wish that Wikipedia were more conscious of some of the ways that people are different—as I allude to on my userpage, I think it shows a complete disconnect with reality that we put warnings in articles because they contain Unicode, but don't if they contain explicit descriptions of child sexual abuse (for example). But code-switching is just about communication. All communication is artificial and arbitrary. All outward personas are artificial and arbitrary. As someone with no natural knack for communication and an outward persona that basically amalgamates a lot of partial truths about myself into an impression of a singular identity, that may be easier for me to accept than it is for some others. I think what matters for everyone is to find the places we can be ourselves as much as possible. If Wikipedia is such a place for some people, then they're lucky; but I think that's more by coincidence than by design in those cases. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamzin. You're always thoughtful and often thought-provoking. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sky Living

User:Onel5969 has taken the unilateral decision to undo the splitting of the Sky Living article from Sky Witness. I have asked Onel5969 for an explanation as to why this has been done, rather than reverting it at this stage so as to avoid an edit war which I might lose.

I received no objections when i mooted the split so this appears to be one person's view and it was done without any discussion.

Given that you contributed to my redirect discussion, and closed it after I'd recreated the Sky Living page, I'd be grateful for any guidance/support regarding re-splitting the two articles. Rillington (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: 1998 United States Capitol shooting RfC

Hey! I'd really like to know if your post on the RfC was meant to be a vote of support or opposition, or just a miscellaneous comment that you wanted to throw in there. I'm trying to keep track of the tally of votes for the purposes of the discussion. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Answered on your talk since I'd already posted there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Pearl shell

I'm really confused about this redirect discussion which was closed based mostly on your input. You say that Bivalve shell discusses the formation of pearls. But I don't see that in there anywhere. I see brief mentions of "mother of pearl", but nothing on pearls. Since the dict def you quoted says a pearl shell is a pearl-producing shell (pearl oyster), I don't see Bivalve shell is a good target since it doesn't even mention pearls, only the material from which they are formed. Wouldn't Pearl#creation be better is is about pearls and discusses their formation in the shell. Mentioning here since the discussion is closed. MB 20:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@MB: I think I meant to say discusses the formation of mother-of-pearl, which is the important part here. The goal is to tell readers about pearl shells, which are a subset of bivalve shells. So I do stand by my !vote. That said, I see your logic, and Irealize my misstatement could have influenced others' choice not to comment there. If you'd like to request that Rosguill reöpen the thread, I don't object. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, please reopen this RFD per above for further discussion. MB 22:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the SPI I've filed:

I decided to withdraw it, mainly because I realized I might've been mistaken. I'm dreadfully sorry about the inconvenience I may have caused you. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@DarkMatterMan4500: The inconvenience isn't really to me, since I wasn't clerking that case. In the future, though, as a basic sanity check when putting together an SPI, you should make sure you're able to point to at least one thing that one of the listed sox has in common with the master or a previously-blocked sock, with diffs for both. It's also almost never worthwhile to report 0-edit accounts, unless their username patterns are exceedingly obvious. If there's 0-edit sleepers, they'll either get picked up by CU or they won't. There's not much non-CUs can do.

Speaking of sox, you a Red Sox fan? :) I clicked through to the Miraheze link on your userpage and saw we grew up a few towns apart. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

At times, I do watch Red Sox games. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Border crossings, ANI, SPI

Hello, Tamzin. I'm worried that a fellow editor might have cherrypicked and misrepresented what you said, at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings. Fyi. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

😳 Oops.

Thank you for correcting my silly mistake at User talk:Hayleez. Presumably I accidentally some past version of the page, but I have no idea how I came to do so. JBW (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I suspect the devs throw little things like this into MediaWiki just to gaslight all of us.^{[humor... mostly]} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Who knows? JBW (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: P.S., you might want to check out User talk:Favaroon (with thanks to Spicy for the find). If I were clerking this at SPI I'd recommend an indef for Favaroon for evasion of scrutiny after warnings on the Hayleez account, but no sanctions for the Hayleez account since your warning does the trick, preventativeness-wise. But I wouldn't fault an admin who just indeffed both. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, Tamzin. If I had known about that when Favaroon was still active, I would certainly have blocked at least that account, perhaps both. Also, if I had known about it when I posted my message to Hayleez, I might perhaps have blocked then. However, as things are, since Favaroon has not edited since the admission of sockpuppetry, and Hayleez hasn't edited since my warning, I am inclined to leave things as they are for now. Obviously that will be subject to review if and when either account resumes editing. It also occurs to me that, since the editor is known to have switched to a sockpuppet because of being warned by another editor, they may do so again following recent warnings, so if any similar editing starts up from a new account it may be worth looking at. JBW (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: That's fair enough. I'll keep an eye out. Might set rc_scanner to flag CSD taggings by new accounts for a bit (which TBH is a good use case regardless). I'll let you know if I spot another. Or I'll just SPI it at that point because that'd be three. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you can choose to contact me or go to SPI as you prefer, or both. SPI cases sometimes languish for a ridiculously long time before any administrator gets there, leaving the sockpuppeteer to carry on. I can't promise to always be available, but it's likely that I'll be quicker. On the other hand, if a CheckUser seems necessary I won't be able to help. JBW (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I like "cetacean needed". JBW (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A little nod to one of the only jokes to survive in mainspace by consensus; ctrl+f it at List of cetaceans. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow! I never knew about that. JBW (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Its me again

Hey!! Hope all is well. StroopWaffles are still on my radar but since I am a bad cook, waiting for the next bakery run lol. Don't wanna take up anymore of your time then I already have but had a question about copyright and thought maybe you could guide me in a direction. New account doing some edits here: Jay Sadguru Swami. Nothing bad but they added some off-wiki links to a branches youtube video in the see also section. Someone else had undone the links addition a few days ago and I think the undo made sense so I reverted back to that and left a talk page entry. The user dropped the lyrics on the page. This is a ritual/prayer so I figure similar to a poem or song. This is the closest I could find for a policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lyrics_and_poetry and not sure how copyright hits something that is a few centuries old but if I read the policy correctly, the article should focus on "analytical framework" so didn't know if lyrics flies with policy. Not opposing the edit if it meets policy. More-so wanted to educate myself on what is allowed. Thanks for the time. Kbhatt22 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: Sorry for my slow response to this. As noted below, I'm gonna be away from Wikipedia for a bit, but did want to follow up. Haven't looked into this particular case, but as a general answer: Something a few centuries old wouldn't be copyrighted, but overquoting can be a stylistic concern as well as a legal one. Otherwise we'd be no different than Wikisource. As to what's a valid external link, see WP:XLINK. If you have more copyright questions, my favorite person to nag is User:Firefly.

While I'm away, if you want to take a more proäctive role with the stuff listed at WP:NPOVN—striking stuff that seems fine, tagging stuff that doesn't, etc.—please feel free. If the thread gets archived, feel free to copy the list of affected pages into my userspace, maybe User:Tamzin/Moksha pages. And if any talk-page stalkers want to chip in on that effort at NPOVN, I would hugely appreciate that.

So, yeah, be back in a bit. I know you've got one or two other experienced Wikipedians to rely on for guidance. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, always happy to help with copyright queries. :) firefly ( t · c ) 08:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thank you so much for the reply and please take care. I wish you the absolute best. You are awesome and amazing on Wiki and I am sure you are equally awesome and amazing off wiki too. You are extremely valuable to the Wiki community, especially to noobs like myself, so I am rooting for you with the best of wishes. Its not much but sending you a big Baymax Hug Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly: You don't know what you signed up for lol. My indecisiveness gets annoying really fast but I promise I will behave haha Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirect created at the request of a sock

Hello! I notice you struck/hid some comments at Talk:SIC, apparently by a sock user. I created a redirect SIC (journal) at the request of that user - I had no reason to suspect them of being a sock as the request seemed reasonable. Should that redirect also be deleted? It seems to me a valid redirect, even if the user requesting it was not valid, though it's not an area I know much about. --Hrossey (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hrossey: Per BANREVERT, it's at any editor's discretion whether to revert contributions by a sockpuppet. In this case, I'm being very aggressive with his non-mainspace contributions, since that's what he's most focused on, and I want to send a clear message that he is not welcome here. It may sound cruel, but sometimes deleting someone's hard work is the best way to dissuade them from coming back. I've mostly left his content work alone because I don't think it'll make much of a difference in whether he returns. (The one thing that might make a difference is rolling back Pierre Albert-Birot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it was in such a poor state before that I just can't bring myself to. I'd feel differently if his ban were for content disruption, but it was always about disruption at RfD and RM.) My point in all this is: Up to you. You created the redirect, so unlike the other stuff it can't be G5'd. If you'd like to tag it for G7 deletion, that's your call, based on what you think is best for the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. It seems to me that it is probably best to leave the redirect in place as it is potentially useful - this sock editor should be getting a clear enough message from your response to his other contributions! --Hrossey (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"I don't like calling people liars"

Then SPI was an odd choice of occupation :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

​Heh, I reworded that. Touch more blunt than I intended. But yeah, guess what I mean more is, I don't like calling people liars unless I'm willing to stake a block on it. Doesn't really make sense to say "I'm confident you broke policy and then came to SPI and lied directly to a clerk about it... But I'll let you off with a warning."

Btw, speaking of occupations, congrats on the promotion! Is it true CUs make triple what clerks do? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the pay raise is nice, but what's really cool is we get free lunches twice as often! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: You aren't meant to mention the lunches! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was OK as long as we didn't say what the lunches were, where they were served, or who made them. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"A lunch has already been made and didn't taste very good. The cook felt the lunch tasted a bit like a lunch we had a while ago, but most of the diners felt it tasted too different." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I would wish to convey my deepest apologies to you regarding User talk:SSG123#November 2021 and User talk:SSG123#Final warning: Editing the same pages while logged in and as an IP. You see that it was my first venture for andminship and due to lack of experience, I have committed some blunders. Please do not understand this as an attempt to pacify you but as me taking an opportunity to thank you for pointing out the mistakes which I have made and bringing them to my notice. I assure you that in future, such things will not be repeated. Thanking You, Yours faithfully, SSG123 (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Have I lost touch

I tend to consider myself among those who err on the side of caution in matters of CSD, and despite my habitual laziness in keeping abreast of changes to the PAGs (perennial on-and-off editing, recurring WikiMalaisse, NOTBURO, DGAF, etc, and yes I know those aren't good excuses), I can't think of any time recently where my CSD tagging was off until yesterday when I had two declned in a matter of hours. I did some rereading but everything still looks textbook I mean this still strikes me as completely uncontroversial, but maybe I'm just dense or there's an rfc I'm missing somewhere. Don't get me wrong, there's rarely harm in a full xfd; the whole point of speedies is for stuff that is guaranteed to be deleted at xfd anyway, but this all just seems so bureaucratic. Anyway we crossed paths a couple times in xfds some ways back and it seemed like you were on top of all this stuff, so I thought you might know something I don't, (although No such user seems to be an the same page as me). Thanks for your time. Due to my current set-up my IP is hopping, mostly uncontrollably, all over the place. I probably won't respond once that happens since in the long-run that leaves open the possibility for random people in eastern europe to try and impersonate me, but I will definitely see any reply. I'm well aware an account would solve this problem but that doesn't change the fact that meatball:LoginsAreEvil. Regards, 79.126.108.63 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've commented at the MfD. Not sure what the other case you're referring to is, but, we all have speedies declined from time to time. I wouldn't infer anything like having lost touch just on the basis of a few declines. After all, if 100% of your speedy taggings are upheld, that means you're likely missing some you should have tagged. (And of course, some things are in the eye of the beholder reviewing admin. Some admins will U5 a userpage that I wouldn't even blink twice at. Some will G11 a new article just because it has the word "company" somewhere in there. And I say that knowing that there's some things that go in the opposite direction, things that I maintain fall under a plain-text reading of some CSD or other, but which some admins feel do not.)
  P.S., you should take a look at m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation § IP Masking Implementation Approaches (FAQ). You may stand to benefit from the "session-based identity" approach, if it's implemented. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any recommendations...

...on a CU to contact privately? (i)/(ii) did it again 15 minutes before the SPI was archived (seemingly from a different IP range, although I'm terrible at reading these things, and for obvious reasons I'm not going to disclose any part of the number here), and (iii) is appealing his block again, without apparently disclosing whether or not he block-evaded. Over the years I've been in private contact with a number of people who technically have CheckUser privileges, but at least one of them has gone on record as not wanting to that particular tool, and as should be clear from my wording at the SPI I didn't even know that privately contacting a CU was an option (things may have changed since 2013 or it may have just been a BEANS issue). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hijiri! :) I'm not sure if it was once not the case, but at the moment WP:CONTACTCU allows for reaching out privately to CUs. I know that TheresNoTime, who was the CU on this case, is available by email or on IRC for such matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Page curation log

User:Tamzin, I am not sure what the curation of the Occupatonal Health Science entails. Having started the page, I wondered if there is something I can do to be helpful. Iss246 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iss246: That was a standard system message to let you know that I, a new page reviewer, have reviewed the redirect you created, Occupational Health Science, and determined that there is nothing about it requiring urgent review (or that the reviewer has fixed any such issues). In this case, it's a valid redirect, so I marked it as reviewed. Don't worry, it doesn't mean there's anything for you to do; the opposite, if anything. :)

That said, this is actually a case where normally I would have done something other than just review it. Specifically, the parenthetical disambiguator you used for the target Occupational Health Science (journal) is unnecessary. Just having it at the Occupational Health Science title is fine. So normally I would have just moved the article, but the article is currently at AfD, and it's frowned upon to move an article that's at AfD. If the article is kept, I'll "reverse the redirect" by moving the article to the shorter title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation User:Tamzin. I ordinarily do not put "(journal)" in parentheses. I started several WP pages for journals including the Journal of Occupational Health Psychoogy. There was no need to include the "(journal)" add-on. We know that it is a journal from the title of the outlet. The term "occupational health science" is a term that has been used in scientific papers and conference meetings. It occurred to me that I should use "(journal)" as an add-on to distinguish the journal for readers interested in the subject of occupational health science as a subject and not necessarily as a journal. I also think someone will eventually start of WP page on occupational health science as a science and I would want to avoid having to create a disambiguation page. Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iss246: I've heard differing perspectives from different Wikipedians on what we should do when the first article created with title X is clearly not the primary topic for X. Both sides make good points. In this case, though, I don't think that matters, due to a guideline called WP:DIFFCAPS. Since Wikipedia article titles are normally written in sentence case, and article on the general concept of Occupational health science would be capitalized that way, not as Occupational Health Science. We have tons of articles using that format, such as Ice cube / Ice Cube. So I think it would be fine (and standard, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines) to have the same situation with the field of occupational health science and the journal of the same name. But if you disagree, I can start an RM after the AfD, assuming the article is kept. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Tamzin, you are a more experienced hand at WP than me. Your explanation is compelling. I am okay with the idea that we can return to the name "Occupational Health Science." But I think we should let the dust clear regarding the deletion proposal. If, as I hope, the page will remain and not be deleted, then we can work on restoring the name of the page to "Occupational Health Science." Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

continuing the discussion?

I wonder if you had time to think more about the hoax discussion? Your input was very helpful, and as a neutral party, you may be better able to build a consensus there than someone like me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

About my effort to update the page of the neuroscientist and writer Sidarta Ribeiro

Hi Tamzin. I am a friend of Sidarta Ribeiro, I follow his trajectory as a scientist and writer and now that his book The Oracle of Night is being released in English I thought he deserved to have his Wikipedia page – which was outdated and with some objectively wrong information – updated and correct. I am not being paid for this work nor am I working with Luiza Mugnol Ugarte. All information I have added regarding academic titles, papers, positions, research areas, awards and publications is strictly factual. There is no way to consider “hard”, objective and correct information as “promotional”, right? The only part of my updates that can be discussed as to whether or not they are promotional is the description of The Oracle of Night book. Compared to other book descriptions published on Wikipedia, I don't consider it out of the box. But since all text of this type has an authorial, subjective dimension, if you find my description of the book inadequate, OK, then let it not be restored. (If I have time, I can try to make a “less positive” synthesis.) Given these considerations, I ask that the additions e corrections I made in the introduction, and in the sections “academic degrees”, “fields of research”, “awards” and “works” be restored. As it is strictly factual, all the information I have added in these sections would be the same if included by anyone else who properly updated the page. (Incidentally, this information can be confirmed in a single document: the “Lattes Curriculum” of Sidarta Ribeiro, published on the official resumés platform of the academic community in Brazil, in which the insertion of false information implies legal consequences: http://buscatextual. cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do. If appropriate, I can add this link to the page after the information is restored.) Flavio Righetto (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Righetto (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: The Shaban sox

Thanks. I wasn't sure where to file it, it wasn't the sockpuppetry as much as it was all the threats, insults and sabotage attempts. I'll be on the look out for this user, he's been quite a pain for the past 2 months.--MexTDT (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Medieval Monuments in Kosovo

Tilted?

Less tilted

Please have mercy! I don't want. El_C 13:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Yeah, that's a whole lot of socking effort for an article with <1k pageviews per month (where probably half those views come from admins and clerks). If someone just set a script to block anyone with less than 20k edits who touches it, there'd be no false positives in the last 20 edits, going back to mid-July. (Not that anyone should do that. But it's a funny thought.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me or is "Pecka patrijarsija" tilted? Also, I'm seeing double — four Pecka patrijarsijas! Anyway, should I just WP:ECP and be done with it...? El_C 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Part of me wants to say, "Oh, just let them tire themselves out edit-warring there." Not like the content they're edit-warring over is particularly offensive, just your run of the mill "What country is this?" nonsense. Another part of me says "Yes but we don't use mainspace for honeytrapping." And a third part says "That article needs some love and ECP won't help with that." So I dunno. If it were my call I'd probably leave it be for at least a few more iterations, but I'm not too familiar with these banned users—only read up on this last night—so take that with a grain of salt.

P.S. My favorite thing associated with historic churches in that part of the globe will always be "If you die before you die, you won't die when you die". Which I can't find coverage on on Wikipedia, but the Internet swears is (a translation of) a phrase you'll see written at Mount Athos. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If I do before I do do... Do-ing nothing is pretty much my favourite thing, so sounds good, let's do that. It looks tilted! El_C 20:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The "tilting" in the image is fairly standard geometric distortion from using a short focal length lens off-axis. I made an attempt to correct the distortion. As always with these kinds of corrections, it's not perfect, but better. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

~giggles helplessly~

At least it keeps them in the sock drawer! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Test/Sub/Archive

Hello, Tamzin,

Well, this page had a curious edit history. Looks like it started as a valid SPI case and then went wonky. Curious pages pop up at CSD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Please look at this sock puppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benjamin.Olivier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkykung (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for making the criticism section better. But I am sure they will be back to blank it again. Dunkykung (talk)

Socks

This and the two following FP reports filed by Special:Contributions/Rajiv_Nair_EIL & Special:Contributions/DRajkhowa. Possibly the same person, based on the edit, using separate accounts, or meats. Think there is a COI/PAID issue here too. (editor didn't respond to questions at User talk:Rajiv Nair EIL & User talk:DRajkhowa). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I can leave {{uw-agf-sock}} if you want, plus {{uw-paid}} for the latter (since DanCherek has already warned the former), but if you'd rather go straight to SPI or COIN I can hold off. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No preference on how/if it's dealt with, just wanted to raise attention to the issue. I tagged the page with {{undisclosed paid}} for review since that, along with other history, seems dubious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Warned. If they persist, probably better to go to COIN than to SPI, but, we'll see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your honeytrap appears to be attracting sock fluff

I have added a new SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali. Obviously I cannot tell what they are, but skilled folk can. One has just posted an image to commons and added it to the draft. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Looks like my fellow trainee Jack Frost has already gotten to it. :) Annoyingly, that IP looks to be on a different ISP (and thus different /8 range) than the one you caught them on a month ago, although the same city (the draft subject's hometown). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I do wonder why Cervantes thinks he is important! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a feeling that all of these are Cervantes himself. But I don't really care one way or the other. If he's paying money for this he's onto a loser.

"Next one please!" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And a further five! They have branched out into spamming different articles Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

My curiosity was stoked after getting pinged on the SPI. I'd be happy to create a private edit filter to catch these if that would be helpful. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie from a non-SPI team, member's perspective I think this would be useful. I've tracked a good few down and opened SPIs for them. Having a filter drop a large hint to interested parties would be handy.

I find them by searching for the quoted string "George Cervantes" in all areas, which is a bit clumsy. This Cervantes of not the only one, of course. Those whose wiki-hobby is investigating SPIs will have a better opinion than an ordinary editor. This is just my sixpennyworth. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Just wanted to say, sorry that I haven't followed up on this yet. Been a bit busy in the cursèd real life, and mostly limiting my on-wiki activities to things I can handle quickly; will take a look at the SPI when I have the chance, hopefully today. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There is very little on Wikipedia that is urgent. Even massive vandal sprees can be reverted at a click by those with the right permissions. An SPI can await ts turn. 👍 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

SPI request

Hi Tamzin, would you mind just noting here that the account was later CU blocked as a sock of NoCal100? Just makes it easier to refer to for later SPIs. nableezy - 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy:  Done. FWIW, that was the sort of tough case where a decent argument is made, but the risk of blocking an innocent person runs too high. My training as an SPI clerk has been that you need to show both that an account could be a sock and that it reasonably couldn't not be a sock. You easily met the first half of that, but in a messy topic area like PIA it's often hard to meet the second. I'm glad that CU evidence was able to clear up what behavioral evidence was not.

Also FWIW, I think this is a case where an extensive back-and-forth in the "Comments by other users" section scared a lot of clerks/CUs away. Next time I see a NoCal filing, if no clerk's already on it, I plan to clerk that section pretty agressively with respect to diversions and tangents, as I think this would be in the best interest of both the filer and the accused; if you're the filer and you want to avoid that kind of chaos, feel free to ping me. All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I agree 100% on the bit about the other users section. Thanks! nableezy - 19:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OfficialPankajPatidar

Trust me, I've got you beat in the feeling like an idiot department today, but I got a kitten on my talk page for my troubles, which I'm happy to share with you in the hopes that it makes you feel better, as it did for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It's a funny thing. A few years back I made some lifestyle changes that got me to stop rushing through things, and one result was that I started subvocalizing more when I read and write. This seems to have had the effect that I have an unusually strong tendency to make homophonous typos. You'll see me from time to time correcting unusual typos of that sort in my posts at SPI and elsewhere... Anyways, point is, Google generally only corrects lookalike typos, not soundalike ones (beyond common ones like "through"/"threw"), and thus when I mix up something like "Mark" and "Mike" (not the error in question here, but similar in nature), Google doesn't catch it. Oh well. I'd've requested the check either way, but do feel a bit silly.

And thank you for the cat. Back when I was a Wikidata admin I had File:I IZ SERIUS ADMNIM THIZ IZ SERIUS BIZNIS lolcat.jpg on my userpage. (And re your last post on this page, assuming I do run the gauntlet and pass, it'll be on my userpage or talkpage here.) So, cute cats are always welcome.

How's your day been? What makes you more of an idiot than me? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Check my block log. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oooof yeah. Well. No notification when you get blocked (I'd know), so hopefully none of the mistaken ones noticed. :D

The other day I blocked an LTA on two of the test wikis, which was my first set of non-test blocks in... eight years, I think? Still afraid someone's gonna tell me I fucked something up... would give me a pretty bad bad-block percentage if so. Although I started out at 100%, so I guess you can't do worse than that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are an amazing Wikipedian, keep up the great work! LGBTQ+ Pride forever ;)

SassyGamer483 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Engineers India page

Dear Sir, this is in response to your comment on my talk page. I certify that I am not being paid for the posts in Engineers India. Wherever possible I have tried to provide citations to establish authenticity of the content. I am a new user that's why edits may not be very professional but there is absolutely no payment angle here. Pl let me now if more clarification is required. Thanks DRajkhowa (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As soon as I return

As soon as I return I will work with them and try to get them to set goals for themselves and what they want to edit on Wikipedia. I didn't push it because I know they were just trying to feel everything out first. It went a little excessive but I truly believe it was community building. I really hope they don't get discouraged by everything. --ARoseWolf 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Off-Wiki communication

Hello Tazmin! You have been really helpful with our experience as a plurality on Wikipedia, and I wanted to say thank you. If you are comfortable, is there a possible way we are able to communicate off-Wiki so that we are able to have a conversation and not break the rules on Wikipedia? I don't want to bypass any of your boundaries! -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: If you set up email on your account, you can email me through Special:EmailUser/Tamzin. (If you do so, I recommend making a dedicated email address for Wikipedia, rather than using your main one.) :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

We arent able to access Email through our computer.. do you possibly have Pinterest or Discord? /nm /npre -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for being an awesome contributor to Wikipedia and helping new editors throughout their journey! -Gretchen

RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Testing Echo weirdness

@Example:. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)