User talk:Girth Summit

This is Girth Summit's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 30 days

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gerda - just realised that I didn't respond to this - how rude! Thanks for the reminder - how can it have been six years? Thanks for the precious memories. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LTA is back

Hello, LTA is back. They are continuing their POV edits. Could you please take a look at this SPI? [1] Kajmer05 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's late and I'm going to bed - someone will look at it in due course. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (I wrote this just a second before the thread was closed)

"No, I do not see any irony here. I made this thread because I think TonyTheTiger's vote was retaliatory and obviously goes against the spirit of honest voting. I still think it does. How you deal with that is up to you. GeogSage giving his friend a "beer" was never ever an issue. Him running off to another page to comment on my "reaction" (and saying it's the least of what he thinks) is a very clear "F that guy" to me. You can interpret it another way, but I will not. And again, how the admins here choose to respond (if at all) is up to them. Block me, if you deem it necessary. I can only speak my mind and say my peace on this matter." 217.159.164.134 (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry you interpret it that way. I don't know why you are so bothered about the original vote. Do you ever watch 'RfA' discussions, where people vote on whether or not somebody should become an admin? There are people who will vote oppose there not because they have any particular problem with the candidate, but because they are opposed to administrators in general, or even because they don't want to see an RfA go through unopposed. We don't block those people - we don't think they're very nice, but we don't block them, because they have a right to cast their vote however they choose, and if someone wants to make a pillock of themselves publicly then provided they're not causing disruption elsewhere, we are not the Don't Be A Pillock Police.

As for the beer on the talk page, I don't know why you think it has to be a 'fuck that guy'; why can't it be a 'never mind that guy, don't worry about it', or a 'yeah, he was over-reacting, you didn't do anything wrong so don't feel bad about it'? You can take it how you choose to, I suppose. And no, I don't see any reason why I would block anybody at this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add this here as a very small linked addendum in your final reply on ANI? I did write it literally seconds before the close. My final ¢2. Other than that, I'll bow out. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to add to a discussion that's been closed, and I don't see what good it would do. That discussion will disappear into the archive, and likely nobody will ever look at it again. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant but also so precious it can no longer be touched. Honestly, I think you are a nasty scumbag. As are the two other guys. Please block me from this website. And do it indefinitely. No two months nonsense. :) 217.159.164.134 (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a matter of form - adding to a closed discussion isn't entirely forbidden, but it's not the sort of thing one does unless there is a point to it. Now, what I can't really get my head around is someone who is so sensitive to perceived insults that they start a thread at ANI because someone else voted to cancel out their own vote, and complain about someone saying they over-reacted, but who is also willing to call other people nasty scumbags. I've been called worse, it doesn't bother me, but I really don't understand that mentality. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only responding in kind. I now see that almost all power users on this site are in cahoots (INB4 your retarded explanation about how that's not the case). Now block me (indefinitely). Let's get it over with. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... I had to look up what INB4 means. 'Retarded' is not a nice word to use, I'm not personally offended by it but I know that some people are, so I will use a synonym. Stupid explanation incoming: I've never interacted with either of those two editors before, as far as I can recall. I'm not sure I'd call either of them 'power users', they're just regular editors. I guess Tony the Tiger has a few advanced permissions and a lot of edits, but GeogSage not so much. So no, we're not in cahoots, but we've been around long enough to learn the lay of the land. I kind of suspect that you have too, no? This particular IP hasn't been editing for long, but new editors tend not to wash up on the shores of Wikipedia talk:Vital articles as their first port of call. How long have you been around?

We don't indefinitely block IPs. We sometimes block them for a few years, but since they tend to get reassigned, there's little point in indefinitely blocking them. You've been on this one for, what, three days? If I was going to block you, I'd probably make it a week - but I'm not going to block you for calling me a few mean names on my talk page. Someone else might. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that Acroterion has pressed the button. Any ideas who this is? Girth Summit _(blether) 00:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't seem familiar, just someone with a chip on their shoulder and a keyboard. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is their first rodeo, but I don't see them on that IP range in the past. Oh well. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 00:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for helping diffuse the situation on ANI. I owe you a metaphorical beer as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If only the drama had actually diffused, instead of migrating here, perhaps blocks wouldn't have been necessary... Girth Summit _(blether) 03:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Problems on pastirma

Hi Girth Summit, I was just wondering if you could let me know about something. You recently reverted an edit on pastirma that also took out a copyright problems template that I had added. Was that done on purpose? If so, that's totally fine with me, but after checking out the Earwig report, I'm just a little unsure whether it actually fixed all the concerns. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squawk7700, I was reverting a sockpuppet. Looking a the history of the article, there has been a lot of reverting back and forth over the past month with numerous socks and IPs. If you still have concerns about the current text, please feel free to reinstate the template. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian user

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnDavies9612&diff=prev&oldid=1313371362

(Removal suggests additional check) 93.143.172.227 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, my eyes, a mobile diff!

Ahem, I've recovered now. I see nothing wrong with the removal - the issue was resolved, the reports have been deleted as misfiled (or closed, I haven't checked which, but they're no longer in the queue). What's the problem here? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the IP is from Croatia. He has used various IPs to remove content about the Malaysia football league, clubs, players and some of them are from Europe. He has interfered with other people's work. You can see here [2],[3]. JohnDavies9612 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I can't disagree with an IP editor who removes the following sentences: The team will use Teck Hin-KR FC in the 2025/26 A2 Amateur League. A mutual agreement has been reached by the club owners with KR to compete and pursue success. Both parties are committed to ensuring the team is at the highest level in the football hierarchy, sourced to a Facebook page. I haven't looked into it, but it's almost certainly Copyvio, and even if it isn't, it's unencyclopedic marketing drivel, and it should have no place in any article. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. JohnDavies9612 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Rohidan

Please take a look after my grammar clearing, as again mentioned user shows blatant lack of understanding. 93.143.173.65 (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth Summit, you can see the IP Special:Contributions/93.143.172.227 is same with Special:Contributions/93.143.173.65. He has so many IPs. I have also warned him for NOT WRITING AN EDIT SUMMARY. That is against Wikipedia policy. JohnDavies9612 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any responsible editor able to apply ban should help user John, his sight and mental state got affected. Even feels sad to read. Thanks in advance 93.143.173.65 (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are just an anonymous IP. This is because you are interfering with their edits. Every article has a creator. They are doing their editing. You need to read, understand and register Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, list your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Malaysia task force. JohnDavies9612 (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John, stop - no, nobody needs to register an account to edit here (except pages that are semi-protected, or in certain contentious topic areas). Nobody needs to join a WikiProject to edit articles - wikiprojects do not own articles. Yes, edit summaries are good practice - rather than 'warning' someone for not using them however, it might be more collaborative to just explain to them why they help? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I just want to ask why the IP from the same person removed (BlackHoleRev7) painstaking work.. See here. Anyway thanks for your explanation. 👍🏻 JohnDavies9612 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked them why they made that edit? (As opposed to warning them not to?) Girth Summit _(blether) 11:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir/Madam, you can see he did a manual revert. I already explained that don't use [[ ]]. See here JohnDavies9612 (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

93.143.173.65, there is no need to make guesses about other users' mental states, it will just make them upset. See WP:NPA. Instead, you can just provide the necessary evidence (links, etc), and let the administrators decide what to do. 『π』BalaM314 〘talk〙 10:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see black talk page where we agreed to keep his format detail.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking

[[]] explained, he is stalking each of my edits out of desperation or ?!

if you can handle still, good luck. 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Acea article

It appears you accidentally edited an old version of the article here when you corrected the educational institution information, undoing a lot of intermediate edits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was an accident- I can only assume I had an old version of the article open when I clicked 'edit'. I'm on a cell phone at the moment, but will fix in an hour or so when in back in my hotel room (unless someone else has already done it). Girth Summit _(blether) 01:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opala300 and concerns regarding Romani pages

I wasn't sure how to go about this, but considering the user's past conduct and the fact they revert unfavorable messages on their talk page such as this message from you, in which you voice your own concerns, I decided to bring this to your attention.

User RomaniResearcher reported Opala300 to the Administrator's noticeboard already [4], and while I agree that RomaniResearcher's conduct wasn't appropriate (and their own edits questionable due to outdated sources), their concerns regarding Opala300's edits and refusal to discuss changes were valid and the matter should have been looked into. What I find particularly concerning are multiple page moves that are not only not discussed, but also marked as minor edits, which they were doing under EggplantSandwich already.

A lot of (if not all) Romani pages are a mess now, on account of both users, and due to the sheer mass of edits and content changed in such a short timespan, I'm not even sure where one would begin to fix any of it. While I hope RomaniResearcher will be open to changing their approach, I don't think Opala300 should be allowed to edit these pages any further, at least not without providing sources.

Thank you for your time Alexeji (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Romani pages are struggling at the moment with Opala300. He clusters around Albanian and Muslim Roma pages, which has allowed users to possibly track his multiple (several, in fact) accounts. He's been blocked for POV-pushing under multiple accounts and on Simple English Wikipedia. 8 days ago, I received this message from another Wikipedia user who wished to remain private:

"Hi RomaniResearcher,

I am sorry to see you struggling with confronting the POV pushing of Opala300. Opala300, based on public info, has been banned from Simple English Wikipedia for POV pushing in Romani articles:https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Opala300 Opala300 socked with the account Snape8382 (also banned, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Snape8382) and IP addresses 188.28.223.246, 94.197.58.69 and 217.65.134.12 (under 3-month global lock) to keep pushing their POV there simultaneously. There is also suspicion that Opala300 is a sockpuppet of the (1) globally locked account Nalanidil (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Nalanidil) which did the same POV pushing in Romani articles (2) long-term abuser (LTA) known as "Demographic Vandal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Demographics_vandal#Targeted_articles) which has been targeting Romani / Albanian articles. They all had a strong overlap with Opala300 in terms of their interest and behavioural pattern. I hope that these information can help you plan any actions you wish to take."

I believe Florian, another user on the Romani topic-articles, may be another account of his.

Concerning the pages, the previous information contained on the pages were incredibly inaccurate. Some, like myself, take seriously academic principles and a neutral standpoint. Everything I've written has been fact-checked by the original source material. Concerning the "old sources", they are not less authentic, in this case we shouldn't use Homer or Hesiod in discussion on Ancient Greek religion. In Romani Studies, much of the available ethnographic material is from older sources. For instance, nothing substantial has been written ethnographically on Scottish Travellers for over half a century except Stanley Robertson's unavailable article from 2004. Most of the available sources, such as Colin Clarke, Donald Kenrick and Thomas Acton are in the domain of social and racial policies (i.e sociology), not ethnography. This is why researchers (I've been doing this for over 10 years) use older source material. In additional, many of the citations are incorrect. For instance, the information concerning the strong north-south divide in the Romanichal community actually links to a 2013 report on Roma in the UK - which are completely different ethnic group[s]. Therefore, what I've written on the Romani pages is updated, reliable, fact-checked information. The sources have been cited correct and are available to view. In conclusion, I kindly say that it does not need "to be fixed", in fact, I fixed what was unreliable, incorrect and uncited. The actual source material, which is reflected in academia, is now manifested in the articles. I take academic principles very seriously and I'm not offended if you can prove me incorrect; please scrutinise the sources if you believe they are incorrect. I will be happy to change or discuss them. The reason I joined Wikipedia is because your information was creating utter confusion in the Romani community in other spaces online. As a researcher I had to do something about it. Saying this, if a user wishes to update the article, then I welcome this. Again, I'm not adverse to be proven wrong; I welcome scrutiny - it helps me as a researcher to correct my own mistakes. I stress, however, that unlike Opala300, I have never reverted another user's article (except Opala300's edits due to the problems discussed). RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I forgot to add that Opala300 often removes cited information without discussion. For example, all available source material refers to Kirk Yetholm Tinkler's as "Kirk Yetholm Gypsies." I provided sources that confirmed this usage, and I was in the process of gathering more. However, Opala300 removed the information without explanation.

From what I’ve observed, he appears to have a limited understanding of British Gypsies and Travellers, yet does not engage in discussion about why he removes cited material. When asked to provide sources or evidence for his edits, none are given, and most inquiries go unanswered. At times, he seems to take on an "admin-like" role, but his rewrites often introduce inaccuracies, as they are not grounded in the cited material.

To avoid misrepresentation and erasure, I’ve had to include longer quotations from source material so the information cannot be easily altered or erased. This issue has already occurred on the Scottish Traveller page, where sourced and accurate information was removed, leaving the article factually incorrect and incorrect cited. The current version written by Opala300 no longer aligns with the cited sources, whereas the earlier material which I wrote did, as I was the original citer. Again, he is incapable of citing and checking source material. RomaniResearcher (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. @Alexeji: it sounds like this is something that would be best discussed at WP:ANI, rather than on my talkpage - that would get more eyes on the issue, and you might find some people willing to help with any clean up that is required. I appreciate that it's been raised there before, but if you can demonstrate with diffs that they have carried on as they were without paying heed to the warning, it is likely that stronger action would be taken to get them to stop. @RomaniResearcher: if you suspect sockpuppetry, please raise your concerns (with diffs) at WP:SPI. If you use Twinkle, that makes it very easy to create a properly formatted report, using the 'ARV' option from the Twinkle drop-down menu. Regarding your comments on the content and your approach to editing, I know very little indeed about the subject matter you're talking about, or the state of the scholarship on the subject. With that being said, you are describing yourself as a researcher. I just want to ensure that you are aware of our policies on WP:OR, and that you have read WP:SECONDARY. Please let me be clear that I have not reviewed your editing, and am not accusing you of having breached either of these - I just want to make sure that you are aware of this. Our content should be based on what the best and most up-to-date secondary sources have to say about a subject; primary and historic sources are not entirely forbidden (WP:PRIMARY), but editors should never use their own interpretation of those sources and should rely on secondary sources for any analysis. Where sources simply don't exist, we must remain silent. And to address the example that you raised, we would not use Homer or Hesiod in an article to support an assertion of fact regarding ancient Greek religion; we would rely on the work of modern scholars who interpret Homer or Hesiod. Hope that makes sense. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 21:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2025

Delivered October 2025 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

11:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Thanks for reining me in the other day. I really appreciate you taking the time to do that.

Question: In the opening post of that discussion I pinged all the folks who were involved in the previous ANI discussions about this editor. The vibe I get is it would have been better to not, even though that's what was done previously. Am I reading that right, or was there some hidden value in doing this? Uhoj (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily an easy question to answer - 'it depends'. I didn't read the whole discussion - how far back did you go with the previous ANI cases? Did you ping all the editors who commented in those discussions, or just a subset? And if the latter, how did you decide on the subset - was it just the people who filed the complaints? Just the people who close the discussions? Just the people who complained against the editor (and by extension, not any people who might have spoken in support of them)? Can you also point me towards whatever people have said that gave you the vibe that you shouldn't have done it? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Young_Joe%E2%80%93Goalorious_Mothers_SC#

take a look regarding unsourced edits please 93.140.197.21 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taichung_Rock_FC 93.140.197.21 (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you discuss the matter with the user in question before reaching out to admins - I can't see where you've done that. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet accusations

I just noticed more sockpuppet accusations by JeanClaudeN1 that link me to even more accounts. I'll say this because I do find JeanClaudeN1's edits very POVish and it appears that other random editors in Poland do too. Apparently all of Poland is one big sockpuppet because Polish people get upset that an editor inserts a heavily German-centric POV on Poland related articles.

What I find concerning about JeanClaudeN1 is that their edit pattern resembles a single-purpose account or a paid-contributor. JeanClaudeN1's edits primarily focus on Germany and if JeanClaudeN1 edits in Poland related articles they only focus on German history there. Also, looking at JeanClaudeN1's edit history it is clear that they spend a lot of time editing EVERY DAY - going through articles in a very mechanical way, as if they had a list or something. Finally with all this sockpuppet accusations going around, I noticed that a lot of Poland related article that JeanClaudeN1 edited also over lap with Tino Cannst, as seen in the Editor Interaction Analyse[5].

Here is one good example, some small hole-in-a-wall village in Poland Słoszów. A while back Tino Cannst added a very one sided summary of the village's history "The town was colonized by Germans in the Middle Ages. Its German name Roms likely refers to the place Rommerz in Hesse." That's it, that's the history, just German stuff, and sure enough JeanClaudeN1 chasing all of Poland's sockpuppets reverted that text back after and IP deleted it. Could we check JeanClaudeN1 for possible sockpuppets and examine their edit patters, which as I mentioned before are very specific, same with Tino Cannst.

Also, by the way, Tino Cannst, only edits Poland related articles and exclusively focusing on German history in those places. Don't believe me, see for yourself [6], about as single purpose and niche topic area as you can get.

It seems that JeanClaudeN1 is trying to block everyone that disagrees with their POV push, perhaps it's their way of solving content disputes. PJK 1993 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]