User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! ZsinjTalk 19:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Thanks 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00, I have replied on my talk page now. Happy New Year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, at Yellow Garter Band Green Garter Band, both of which I attempted to clean up three or so years ago. The mother ship is Oregon Marching Band, which is just a torrent of unsourced brochure-style crap--, would you like to take a shot at it? I'd probably end up in an edit war with some COI accounts. Happy New! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you and have a Happy New Year. Face-smile.svg Same to of course! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha, happy new year to all of y'all! Drmies (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be added to the list of worst imaginable school articles, let's add Kasson Public School. Again, if I venture into this and the marching band article, I expect to set off edit wars and be accused of vandalism. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My pleasure, . I have no time for those who mistake user talk pages for the walls of public bathrooms. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, hence why I enjoy anti-vandalism. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Allen Rosenbaum
Long history of public relations, and I'm tired of going this alone. ,, any help will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks "Bob", I've had a go and will be watching as well :) Happy New Year and hope you're doing well. Melcous (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha, nice job y'all. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, and very Happy New Year to you. Cheers! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Sanae Takaichi
, this has been the site of months of misogynistic, defamatory editing, including today's sadistic crap. Perhaps you can look this over and come to some resolution as to how far back rev/deletion ought to go. Thank you, as always. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes to page protection, long overdue. Cheers! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00, thank you very much for the notification. I currently can't do a detailed evaluation of all the edits that might qualify for revision deletion, but page protection seemed to be a pretty obvious step to take, so I did that for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated--yeah, I saw that a lot of the vandalism was fetishistic gibberish, which makes it difficult to label defamatory outright. Doing an evaluation--it looks to be one disturbed soul using many accounts--could take a while. Happy New Year, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael Nathanson (film executive)
Would appreciate more eyes on this--recent edits look like gossip rag stuff. Similar problems at Anthony C. Ferrante, though the sources there were terrible, and it was an easier call. I'm wondering about a connection between the two new accounts. ,, your thoughts welcome. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Vanity-wise, it gets worse, : Hexed. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think "backfired spectacularly" is a wonderful expression, though not very neutral. I don't know, gossipy, yes maybe, not the best sourcing, but I wouldn't scrap it. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with your nose, BTW. If you want to revert on those grounds, go for it. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I never got socking, and never will. As for the bio, most of the Fleiss section is worthless if there was no actual crime, and I don't think we could care less what his lawyer thought of him. It all looks WP:UNDUE; I'll probably pare it to a few sentences, in hopes that someone may eventually cut the whole thing. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was on a range with a huge amount of disturbance--and it happened to be one on which I had placed a partial block for disruption in some articles, but I think that was unrelated. Yes, and in this case, it seems particularly unnecessary and silly. Check their unblock request at User talk:Hammerman Gunmetal. Purely at random, of course, all those edits to the same article from someone with the same IP address and hardware. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See, this is why I never host houseguests. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have to ask my kids for the password. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I were a betting man,, I'd place a few dollars on WP:COI with Alan Spencer. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And the more I look at their edit history, the more it looks like the Nathanson and Ferrante edits were personal hit jobs against people in the business. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any kind of substantial in-depth secondary sourcing to make that a notable subject for a BLP, do you? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's not "vanity"--look what all is sourced to this, which is just a short forum post. That is outright deception. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly that is the worst case of lying I may have ever seen. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that is another sock, ? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they are connected to User:AbbeyRhoades. The problem is that the IPs are all over the place, on the earlier accounts already--they're doing their best to hide their tracks. I think maybe the best thing to do is to add them to the SPI and ask for a CU, because this is a bit too complex for me right now. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'd guess that both are connected to the blocked accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , you're an expert on block evasion. Are you able to check whether AbbeyRhoades and Mercutio68 are connected to Hammerman Gunmetal and their already blocked socks? Thanks from 99, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you should take Drmies's advice. I don't think I'm equipped to sort it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks both; I can't find the SPI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion
If you're around,, see Mr. Brenkwitz at. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Matt Ward (record producer)
,, the usual poorly sourced puff bio. When you have the time. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those articles are frequently very difficult--the related problem is that such lists are found all over the place, but for producers and engineers they're even more difficult to verify properly. And probably less notable/noteworthy in the first place. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It's the equivalent of WP:RESUME, nothing but name dropping to puff up the bio. If you missed it, I had a question above about another possible sock of that lovely Hollywood personality. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to User talk:Moops&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 04:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your comment at EWN
IPs are neither expected nor encouraged to remove reports, even those made in bad faith, from EWN or other noticeboards. I gather you may not be entirely a "random" IP, but I have no way of knowing your intent nor your understanding of the edit you are making and why it might or might not be appropriate. In general, I think you can assume that those without administrator flags should not remove content from admin noticeboards, including EWN.  General Ization Talk  00:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That 'report' about me was an act of vandalism by an LTA who was impersonating and has been blocked by . Linguist111 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, and it was perfectly appropriate that the report be removed from a noticeboard without action by an admin, not by an IP.  General Ization  Talk  01:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a way of knowing and understanding intent,, and that is to take a moment to review the edit histories. It's what I always do in such situations, even if it means delaying action for twenty or thirty seconds until I can respond with a degree of certainty. Otherwise you absolve yourself of accountability and rely on the rollback trigger finger as faultless. But we've been here before--you've warned me often and erroneously, and I don't recall that you have a very good track record for acknowledging mistakes. So be it. We'll surely go through this again. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * IP, you seem to think that I should a) recognize you and b) assume that your edits are credible and legitimate. If you would like to be considered credible, please consider establishing an account. You seem to think that you can maintain anonymity and yet also have credibility. Neither I nor any other rollbacker are willing to commit to reading every IP's entire Talk page to try to establish their reputation before reverting non-admin removals of content from administrative noticeboards.  General Ization Talk  01:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as my having warned you "often and erroneously", I can find no other warnings I have given you on this IP, and if it was on some other IP, that only reinforces my point.  General Ization Talk  01:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00, thank you for your diligence in reverting the impostor's edits; your work here is appreciated.
 * , please take this as a reminder to review the diffs before reverting; there is a difference between bad faith (e.g., retaliatory) reports to noticeboards and LTA/troll/impersonator behavior whose reversion should be uncontroversial (as they are de facto banned). How is it harmful for an IP or "less established user" to remove content whose reason for removal is as straightforward as here? Signed, the crewmate, Complex / Rational  01:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the diffs. What I saw was a report at EWN removed without any edit summary within less than a minute by an IP. What was I supposed to have understood by looking at the diffs? And is there any reason not to believe that even bad-faith reports at admin noticeboards are best left to admins to remove?  General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>
 * No offense but you're being rather WP:BITEy towards this IP, and for a very strange reason. Since when does someone have to be an admin or registered user to revert an act of vandalism on any page? And "reading every IP's entire talk page" is not at all necessary to see whether a removal is valid — simply looking at who they're reverting (in this case a blocked sock) should suffice. And reverting a second time after the IP explained they were reverting a blocked sock? What was that about? Linguist111 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please review the IP's edit summary. They did not "explain" anything of the sort. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no,, that you've issued multiple warnings to me at other IPs doesn't reinforce your point, but underscores mine. You seem to think that you can maintain anonymity and yet also have credibility. Yes, and to assume otherwise is an incredible deficiency for a long time user here. Well, you're anonymous as well--neither I nor anyone else can instruct you to use your real name. It's poor form to use my lack of registration as a defense, and advise me to establish an account to cover your mistakes; the vandal whose edit you restored had a registered account. I need to spell this out clearly: one can review the edit histories that precede the edits in question before reverting reflexively. Had you done so, you may have understood the context that noted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the edit history. What I saw was a report removed within a minute of its filing, without any edit summary, by an IP.  By anonymity, I'm not talking about real names. I'm talking about being recognizable as anything other than a random IP. There are many non-admins whom I would instantly recognize as being above questioning their edits, even if they were to remove content from an administrative noticeboard, because I recognize them and know of their work experience here. My point, and hence my suggestion that you consider establishing an account is that you cannot expect to be instantly recognized as having credibility as an IP.  If you'd prefer not to take my suggestion, so be it. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It really wasn't my intention to spend an hour discussing this exchange. Contrary to the IP's assertion, I have a very good "track record" of taking responsibility for errors I have made and will likely make in the future. Clearly the IP's intent was constructive, and I have no doubt of that. However, I continue to believe that the LTA report at EWN should have been left by the IP to be removed by an admin, and that was my only request of them in reverting their removal. That the IP finds this request somehow offensive I think has more to do with them than with me. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your good work here, . Unfortunately, you're still not capable of acknowledging an error in judgment, at least not to an IP. Please don't comment here again. The next time you issue me an unmerited warning, we'll meet at ANI, and I'll keep this discussion for reference. It will be helpful. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the IP's second removal of the LTA's 'report', after you restored it the first time. The edit summary reads please do not restore disruptive edits by a blocked sock. You reverted again regardless. Linguist111 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Especially given the IP's "threat" above, this is probably a good place to end the discussion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 02:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you too! Linguist111 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy editing! Complex / Rational  02:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

List of film premieres
, this appears to be the response to last year's disruption at Premiere. The new account's history isn't very good, either. Have a look when so moved. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh god I remember that. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they're not related, as far as I can tell, but I redirected the article for now; it's problematic enough. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If they try, try again, I'm betting they are related. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, I love that the automated comment after my previous edit was "possible self-promotion in user space." 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Rail transport in Finland
,, recent edits mirror the previous from a WP:LTA. Have a look if so inclined. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . As is often the case, there ought to be revisions that reflect recent changes, in this instance prompted by the impacts of the current war. But users take advantage of that to practice historical revisionism, and screw the whole thing up. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)