Malcolmxl5 isbusy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Kind regards to you all. Please post new sections at the bottom of the page.

This talk page is automaticallyarchived. Threads with no replies in30 days may be automatically moved.

Archives

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25,26,27

This page has archives. Topics inactive for30 days are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than1.

hello i have a question ; how can i block an IP like2026-74912-1‎ who was vandalizing on articles??Anya202514:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Anya2025. If it’s clear and obvious vandalism and they have not stopped after being given warnings, you can make a report at theWikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard where an administrator will assess it and take appropriate action. This is what happened with this particular IP, they were reported at the noticeboard where I saw it. —Malcolmxl5 (talk)15:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much🌹Anya202515:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The articleEdmund Jolliffe has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as NN and AUTO for 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourcedWP:BLP.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular,articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion based onestablished criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you mayrequest undeletion of the article at any time.Bearian (talk)09:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that can go, 15 years and still no significant biographical coverage that we can use. —Malcolmxl5 (talk)04:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)08:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I was gonna edit it myself Your sincerely, Mr. NorwoodCarl 1937 (talk)19:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is that? —Malcolmxl5 (talk)19:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know which one I’m talking about the one about the abortion activist from Virginia that you blocked everyone from visiting and making editsCarl 1937 (talk)19:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't a democracy.
• You still haven't told us what the article is.
• It's not "shady" to protect articles that need protection, but you give no clue about what or why.Acroterion(talk)20:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like you're talking aboutSusan Wicklund. Since it's been a target for vandalism and violations of the biographies of living persons policy, the protection is justified. Were you the author of some of those edits?Acroterion(talk)20:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NoCarl 1937 (talk)20:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are you talking about?Acroterion(talk)20:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What am I talking about? I am talking about that is not democratic withhold and protect an article that people can’t do the wording on publicly that is crooked. Plus, there’s no telling what the other person on the other end has a reason for.Carl 1937 (talk)21:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page of Susan wicklundCarl 1937 (talk)21:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. First up, Wikipedia is not a democracy, it’s a workplace and everybody is expected to follow Wikipedia’spolicies and guidelines and to collaborate with fellow editors to write the encyclopedia. Secondly, protection of the page was requested by another editor due to disruptive edits that were violations of Wikipedia’sbiographies of living people policy. Thirdly, if you find an article is protected, you can make anedit request on the article talk page describing what changes you want to make or you can wait for the protection to expire - which it has... —Malcolmxl5 (talk)22:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it expired four minutes ago.Acroterion(talk)22:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it did. —Malcolmxl5 (talk)22:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you thinkUser:Carl Fritz1938 might be the same person asUser:Carl Fritz1931 who was blocked in January? Only the one edit four days ago but still...Malcolmxl5 (talk)22:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No way those two could also be related toCarl 1937 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). It could beany Carl! /sarcEvergreenFir(talk)22:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!Malcolmxl5 (talk)23:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the edits onIda Yessica Nesse (Special:Diff/1338876914) andSilbernes Lorbeerblatt (Special:Diff/1338877069) should probably be hidden as well, as the kiddo wrote slur on the first line in those articles.1000mm (talk)21:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@1000mm. All done. Do shout out if it happens again. —Malcolmxl5 (talk)21:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you! Will do. This kiddo has a surprisingly persistent track record on this behaviour, so I have no illusion about him being gone. He has previously used proxies to avoid IP blocks.1000mm (talk)21:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery

• Noindexed pages