HiRklingmann, thanks for the message. As it seems this is the first time the page is being protected (and the first time this date-changing vandal has targeted the page) I think it's a better idea to try a shorter one first, per ourWikipedia:Protection policy. If this vandalism starts again after the protection expires, please feel free to message me here and I'll look into it. Best, — ser!(chat to me -see my edits)09:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the 18th of August an anon,35.132.249.245 (talk·contribs) requested an article protection ofMercedes-Benz W124, because he did not like the way I styled the infobox. A day later you declined the request and in parallel I began a DR... by explaining the rationale of my edit on the talk page. 24 hrs later I restored the edit, since no one has replied. However, yesterday, the same anon, reverted the edit again without any explanation. I have reverted it, but perhaps it was impulsive on my behalf. Since you made the initial verdict on RFPP, is too much to ask for your involvement in this unpleasant situation?Carfan87 (talk)20:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, and don't worry, you aren't coming across as hostile at all. For someone to have a Wikipedia article, they need to meet a general notability guideline, perWP:GNG, to determine that they are indeed notable. As the article stands, I don't think there is enough coverage of Fehlinger to prove that he meets these guidelines. As much as speaking at conferences and being featured in game mods are interesting, they don't contribute to notability. With this deletion discussion, if it's found that there's enough reliable sources covering him, then editors will be able to weigh in and see, but for now it's a delete vote from me. Best wishes,ser!(chat to me -see my edits)14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy reply. I do agree that the first reference shouldn’t be his youtube, and rather his twitter.
But while he may not have an official offical position of importance, he is still very notable.
Now it is subjective on whats notable. But if the deletion of his article goes ahead, people may be mistaken hes an actual nato representative. Like reuters did about his #exbrazil. (And got 250k views on facebook). Gunther himself had to clarify his position, and even nato had to make a statement about it.
It is already listed under the controversies section. But you can say he may be one of the greatest “Ragebaiter” ever.
But, if he isn’t notable enough, i am not sure what is, since I have seen footballers I have never heard of with barely any content during my time on wikipedia.
Again, dont take this as any hostility to you. And I know you are a great person when it comes to preserving history. But digging more into this guy, I am starting to feel kinda bad for him.
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase atWikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on theelection talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
On28 September 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleGlen Ward (criminal), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatMr Flashy's gang used teenagers on electric scooters to deliver crack cocaine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Glen Ward (criminal). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Glen Ward (criminal)), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free tonominate it.
Keen to get some feedback from you if you have a moment!
I'm trying to improve the page onPaul McGrath (footballer) and I noticed you replaced a few references I added to the article about "one of the greatest centre-backs in modern football":Special:Diff/1313736706. I'm hoping to improve the quality from it's existing rating of Start class so thought I'd check with you where I went wrong with the references I added. Were they not from reliable sources, not in the body, were these references just better, etc.?
Of course. I had previously added citations to this to the body (perWP:LEADCITE, though I understand the need to cite a claim like this so I'm fine with references staying up there) so these were mostly the same ones. Here's why I swapped out each one:
The SportsJoe one is Ron Atkinson opining that he's the best in Prem history; while this would almost definitely lend itself to meaning he'd be among the best in modern football, it's not directly backing it up.
The Aston Villa source comes direct from the club he played for, and is not independent of him as a result.
The BoyleSports source is from a gambling site; generally where there's better references available I'd avoid that one.
Generally speaking I've always tried to add references fully backing these claims down to specific wording. On the note of improving the article though, I'd be delighted to help out if I can; I've always been a big fan of Paul, met him at a charity event once and he was a gent. Thanks for the message!ser!(chat to me -see my edits)17:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you for the feedback! That's the attention to detail I'm gonna need if we're to succeed in getting this article up to B-class, maybe even A-class.
I've added a request for assessment review to the WikiProject Football/Assessment page and will try to improve it a bit more before looking for a full peer review. If you have any spare time yourself, any help is greatly appreciated!ElfmanWriter (talk)16:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mWikiediter2029! I have removed him being 'the best striker in the world' to make an article more neutral. While the source is reliable, it is generally best to remove the claim. I will revert it, pleasedo not have anedit war about it.Wikiediter2029 (talk)17:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Wikiediter2029: thanks for your message, but no it’s not generally best to remove the claim. If sources say a player is widely regarded as the best in their position it’s a regular thing to include it; see the pages for Ousmane Dembelé, Achraf Hakimi, Gianluigi Donnarumma, Erling Haaland, Declan Rice etc. This standard is applied wherever it’s a common opinion among reliable sources. Thanks and best regards,ser!(chat to me -see my edits)17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of cleaning this up, please let me know what you think in an hour or so. But this nuisance that presented the sources should be reverted/blocked on the spot, they are a sock extraordinaire (User:SukunaZenin,User:Pinzunski, etc, etc). "Notably", they are in love withViktor Gyökeres's article (this new account has already been warned for that) and with overdetail (filling pages with transfer speculation which is forbidden here).
I see the admin that blocked the accounts (not that it will do any good, they'll just get another AND another!!) is retired as of July 2025, if you want/care to file a report...
Thanks for the message, duly noted. I'm just glad for once this claim being added is one thatcan be backed up by reliable sources. I am completely unfamiliar with the sockmaster you refer to so I might leave any filing to yourself; if you do file a request I'm confident another CU will be able to take a look at it. Will continue to keep an eye on the article. Best wishes,ser!(chat to me -see my edits)19:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still working (in 15 minutes i'll be done), have already finished relocating that bit from intro to where it should (style of play!) but am still cleaning their PSG "additions"; in two of the "sources" they used for Mendes' Ballon d'Or contention, they used a web article that mentions ONLYAchraf Hakimi!!! --RevampedEditor (talk)19:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Really, if you think someone (KNOWINGLY!) adds TWO sources about a person that mention someone different can be taken seriously... Not the first they do that (or similar), i remember two years ago when they added a SPANISH source (La Vanguardia) to say that Mendes had become Sporting's youngest everTaça de Portugal winner (it will be forever etched in the article's history, so you'll know i'm telling the truth), i open the newspaper article and...voilá! Not a SINGLE mention to that.
I'll say I have no objection with displaying the plaudits in the lead as long as the references back them up suitably; which per the references at the moment they seem to. I also don't think they necessarily back up the "of his generation" claim added; they just mean he's currently one of the best in the world. This could continue for his whole generation or he could fade... Duly noted in any case.ser!(chat to me -see my edits)20:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it means "currently", it means "of his generation" no? Regarding the Ballon d'Or contention, if you notice, i added TWO sources where Mendes and only Mendes is mentioned (nothis teammate!!), that and his final ranking. But of course the other chap will come and talk down to me in a day or so! --RevampedEditor (talk)20:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhhh, not really. The generational assessments in my view will come in about 10-15 years time - we can say it about players who have demonstrated high class over quite a few seasons (yourMohamed Salahs, yourKevin de Bruynes, etc), but there's always the risk that a player has two or three good seasons and then burns out totally; hence why in my view the "in the world" phrasing is better as it's current and can be removed (as was done withCasemiro after he forgot how to play football at United) when it's out of date. Hope this makes sense.ser!(chat to me -see my edits)20:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four minutes to end the PSG match, i will update stats because he has scored. Even though i do not agree with it, i will compromise with the "best in the world" stuff and re-add it to intro (but without the "known for his whatever", those are traits for the style of play section).
I went back on the decision of reporting the sock, to snitch around (even in the virtual world) is definitely not me, and this is very far from your average lowlife vandal! The free kick addition (albeit with the ref poorly displayed AGAIN!) was indeed a good one, a milestone. But they had no business "ungluing" the paragraphs that pertained to the same season. All in all, I am 100% sure it's the account(s) mentioned above! I only give him "wiki-hell" in this article,João Palhinha andFrancisco Trincão, the other articles (operates 99,99999999999% on Portuguese football(ers)) he can fill with 450 refs and transfer speculation galore i will not budge (i used to clean up after him on the likes ofRúben Amorim orPedro Gonçalves, but longsince gave up because i'm sick of wasting my time, precious or not, on a computer!
P.S. Only noticed the message about A. Isak just above these ones, i could not agree more with what the other user wrote; this "one of the best in the world" stuff has no business being on an encyclopedia! But hey, who is/am he/she/i to argue?
No worries, if you do change your mind and decide to report it you know whereWP:SPI is. Re the above message, it's been a done thing (for long before I've been editing in football) that players with similar plaudits have had it added that they're "regarded" as such - but I've repeatedly removed it from pages where there was insufficient backing and will continue to do so. Best regards as ever,ser!(chat to me -see my edits)21:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only in recent United States politics is left-right seen as analogous to small or large government. What makes a party "left" or "right" is its stance towards inequality, hierarchy, and whether an individual's identity should be dictated by the government and other institutions in society, with the left opposing and right supporting this. Aontú is described clearly in sources as being clearly in the latter.Jollyrime (talk)20:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ser!. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet thecriteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. atWP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators arenot permitted to assign the right without a request.
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. OnSpecial:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should useSpecial:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access isgenerally not allowed (e.g.~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward3RR, but notHey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Macron is a prince of Anddora and that's in his infobox, so why can't it be in the lead if Clinton somehow got a quite important spiritual aristocratic title, while gontang tsang renboche was even invited in Clinton's inauguration ceremony?静魔魔女 (talk)17:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
obviously not or, i offered the resource, an interview to gontang tsang renpoche (friend and helper of gamyong zhepa), with book title, isbn, writer… Can be checked, why did you regard it as or? since it's a non-english resource or what?静魔魔女 (talk)17:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPI was updated recently to mark new reports as "New" instead of "Open". See discussion here:WT:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks#SPI "inbox". This makes patrolling more efficient for admins, so we don't all look at the same case repeatedly, decide it's too difficult, and walk away. I'm not sure why Twinkle didn't work, I don't use it to file SPIs, but if you want to request CU, you can still do that using thespihelper script. You were correct that the typical procedure is for the case filer to leave the case as "New" and have an(other) admin or clerk review the case and request CU if needed, but you're still allowed to request CU yourself.Toadspike[Talk]12:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There isno official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at thetalk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
