User talk:Nemov/Archives/2024/January

Your remarks at AN
I see you still hang out at noticeboards to act as a drama amplifier. Why not just stop that negative behavior? Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's this type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that you continue to exhibit that is so disappointing. Nemov (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Letby
I appreciate that this is very random and unorthodox but I really think someone's attention needs to be drawn to this, and as I can see you've been involved in the context I think you would be an appropriate person for this. Over at Lucy Letby, you seem to be familiar with the user Sirfurboy who has been essentially editing on behalf of Richard D. Gill. A few days ago, a user suddenly appeared at Talk:Lucy Letby and demanded that the section about the said Richard Gill be changed to be more positive of him: Talk:Lucy Letby. This itself is somewhat suspicious, since Gill has himself previously been asking for his social media followers to make edits for him on Wikipedia since he is blocked, and then suspiciously editors come and demand those exact edits be made:,. And surprise surprise, in that previous case Sirfurboy came along and (as always) immediately agreed to listen to the pseudo-Gill account and starts an Rfc asking for wording on the lines of what Gill wanted: Talk:Lucy Letby. And now again this time, Sirfurboy has inserted the pro-Gill content into the 'Doubt about conviction' section:.

But here's the problem: there had previously been a talk page discussion Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 2 where a clear consensus had been reached for the wording of that section after intervention by the uninvolved editor DeCausa, with Sirfurboy himself agreeing that it should say: A small number of her friends and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. After the verdict conspiracy-theories soon began circulating on the internet doubting the outcome. The Letby case has joined a trend where amateur "internet sleuths" purport to have uncovered evidence suggesting that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Amongst this, statistician Richard D. Gill and lawyer Neil Mackenzie KC, who co-authored a work with others on the use of statistics in court cases have also cast doubt on the outcome. That wording was implemented and stayed until now suddenly Sirfurboy seems to have forgotten this previous consensus and disregard it. This is in apparent breach of WP:CONLEVEL: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Although consensus can change, I really don't see how it's right for Sirfurboy to just ignore the previous consensus which he was a part of making, then change the content to his wording without proposing it and without much discussion and with no apparent mandate to override the previous consensus. 86.187.163.95 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm pinging @Sirfurboy since I'm not an expert about this case. I don't know who Richard Gill is or how it relates to that article. I just arrived the discussion via RFC notice. Given this is your only edit on Wikipedia this is a fishy comment to leave on my TALK. Nemov (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned a thousand times to Sirfurboy, I am a Twitter follower of the now-blocked editor who brought the Letby issue to my attention in the first place, but every time I come on here he gets me blocked claiming that I am MeltingDistrict. I expect now a block on the grounds that I agree with MeltingDistrict too much and should therefore not be allowed to be here. 86.187.163.95 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're not a sockpuppet I would recommend creating an account. Proving you're not a sockpuppet is rather easy since their are tools to check. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. This is not this person's only edit on Wikipedia. This is the sockpuppet of banned user . They dot around IPs, but this is from an ISP they have used before. See the ANI thread Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144 regarding their disruption of this RfC by canvassing users on their talk pages. This message is thus within their M.O.
 * And now they have just replied to you and admitted to being a meatpuppet once again. They have been repeatedly blocked for this behaviour. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am asking there what the best way forward is concerning the Lucy Letby RFC and though I haven't named you, I have referred to your opening of a new section and quoted you. NebY (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

2024


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a DYK on the Main page, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - this Figaro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Goth Babe on Lola.png
Thanks for uploading File:Goth Babe on Lola.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)