UntitledEdit

Help, lb user Cornischong is bureaucrat and delketes all our pictures bceause jhe went mad.

be.wikipedia.orgEdit

This was a misprint in the Template:MetaHomePages: ba: was written as be:. So, I've fixed this issue by renaming be into ba and creating entry for be and appropriate main page called Галоўная старонка in Belarusian. --Bełamp 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Travel v. location guide?Edit

Hello Justin, I am following the wikitravel discussion with interest. I'm curious whether you think that something about place-information is hard to provide as a balanced reference, or if it is specifically the model of a traditional 'travel guide' that concerns you.

I share some of your thoughts about traditional guides. I also think that many limitations of paper guides (e.g., arbitrary focus on a few things to do or see) may be remedied online. I have certainly used a guide for visiting a particular park which felt more like a comprehensive ref. about that swath of land (and the few human habitations on it). But there it didn't need to select; it simply indexed and provided information about all places to camp, contact numbers, maps, and sources online. SJ talk  22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Travel guide A good travel guide will be of the sort "X is the best Thai food in town", which is inherently POV. The NPOV way of doing that would be to say "X, Y, and Z all serve Thai food" but that's hardly useful and really is that even desirable when we have search engines? I definitely think that a travel guide is well-suited to an online format, probably even a wiki (the blue line bus will not be running on Thanksgiving, the post office closed and moved across town, etc.) but I don't really see this as being in line with the mission of providing quality reference material like the rest of the Wikimedia projects. I would entirely be in favor of interlinking (e.g.) Wikipedia with WikiTravel as users reading about a city on Wikipedia might want the kind of information that a travel guide gives. It would also be nice if WikiTravel freely used pictures from Commons, etc. But actually bringing it in the fold seems like a bad idea to me and as much as there is already a problem with advertising by way of Wikipedia, it would be grossly exacerbated by adding a travel guide to the Wikimedia projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. SJ talk  08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll openEdit

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Superprotect letter updateEdit

Hi Koavf,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Project portals revertsEdit

Hi. I'm not really sure why you think it's appropriate to revert edits of mine that you don't understand. Did you read API listing template or its talk page before reverting (twice)? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: No. What is it your edit is trying to do? All I can see is that it's a 404, so I assumed that is something that you don't want. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You really shouldn't be reverting edits that you don't understand and you really shouldn't be assuming. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: Can you explain what that is to me? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you please read Talk:API listing template and phabricator:T107086 (linked from that talk page)? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Closing proposalsEdit

What sort of proposals? --Nemo 08:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: If you look at proposals, many are stale and never had any traction at all or are simply non-starters. I would like to clear out ones which have few supporters from several years ago. It seems like they are at least sometimes closed unilaterally following someone's good judgement. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia SchoolEdit

Hello Koavf lets create a school in wikipedia. I have requested a new project Wikipedia School which is very important for new users. Fell free to support me there by adding your name. ThanksHell Rider (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for an account on the Foundation wikiEdit

Hey Justin - thanks for cleaning up the above page. Just wanted to note that we've been archiving these requests at Request for an account on the Foundation wiki/Archives/2016, so I put them in there. Cheers! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): Thanks, Joe. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Stewards aren't stupid ...Edit

If someone acts as a bozo (name and IP range(s) known) and casts aspersions especially at you, then let the stewards, meta admins or others clean it up. Rather than defuse a situation it looks like you may have something to hide when you do that. In my (broad) experience, stewards/checkusers have to be open to such accusations and politely dismiss them, not look to hide them. You are better to say "thank you for your baseless accusations; your clear and continued use of sockpuppets supports the issue that we are trying to manage." Always try to maintain the moral high ground and be seen to be doing it, don't get down in the mud with the mud-throwers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: You're not wrong and your perspective is definitely valued. I'd like to think that since stewards aren't stupid they would also recognize that I was reverting a blocked user as well. So yes, I have a stake in what he's saying but it's not like I'm trying to cover up something for my own benefit. (In addition to the fact that the allegations are baseless.) I get the issue of propriety but this is also pretty clear vandalism--anyone could and should revert it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Grants:IdeaLabEdit

Hey, Justin. How about creating ideas at Grants:IdeaLab? At Wikinews Water Cooler, you mentioned crowdfunding. Why not creating that idea, where it can become a project grant? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I haven't forgotten you--I've just been busy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

ZooNomEdit

I think that your global lock request for Stho002's sock would get more attention if you placed it at the bottom of the list. --125.212.228.11 10:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@125.212.228.11: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

w:Ellen PaoEdit

Since I am unable to revert it, I am bringing a small error you made to your attention:

You have added w:Category:American chief executives to the article, although a more specific category (with 759 members as of today) is already present . (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing_large_categories) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Done. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for also fixing w:Lynn Good, (without being asked :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:LauraHale/Wikinews Content Import AnalysisEdit

What is your reasoning, in removing it from Category:Wikinews? (At this point I'm not taking a position yet, rather waiting to understand better first.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I added that self-same category before I realized that her final report was already in the category. Seems silly to have both her userspace draft and final published report in there, so I was basically fixing my own mistake as it were. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Justin KnappEdit

you might want to request a rename or usurpation. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 14:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Thanks. Cow cleaner 5000 on en.wp created many such fakes using my name and variations thereof (maybe somehow he never got around to just my personal name and surname). —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
ah ok. I see. Did you create the account? --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 18:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: Nooooooo--I don't have any alt accounts. They were all CC5000 but this newest one on en.wp doesn't act like him, so who knows. But none of them are mine. I've considered requesting a usurp but just never got around to it. Thanks for the suggestion tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
ah ok. In that case, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest or SRUC. They might skip the waiting time. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 18:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

April 2018Edit

Please do not vandalize wikimedia, as you did to Proposals for closing projects. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked.

Underpopulated categoriesEdit

I rarely visit en-wiki nowadays and was surprised to see you participating in a wiki-discussion about deleting a template that seems to have ended up in a deletion of a historic and huge category tree.

w:en:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 4#Template:Underpopulated category

The deletion took place after very sparse discussion by editors, who I suspect, have never used either the template or the categories. I am concerned to see such a useful tool deleted, not to mention efforts of countlesss wiki-editors. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Couldn't agree more. Step one to fixing a problem is identifying it. How can we even know that we have work to do if we don't know what work there is??? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
When I was still involved there were more eyes on w:en:wp:cfd than on w:en:wp:tfd. I was wondering if the categories should have been removed without a cfd? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hm, that's actually a good point. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

BlockEdit

Hi Justin. I have detected some strange things. Please look at this. Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 
Recent Changes: Weird Signals for Sock Puppetry
@Josephina Phoebe White: Weird accounts like that get made frequently and they are almost certainly vandals or sockpuppets in the waiting but until/unless they actually do something, there's no need to preemptively block (and I'm not an admin here). —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Federated WikimediaEdit

Federated Wikimedia is still tagged as {{in use}} - are you still working on it? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Oh wow. No, not in any serious way. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiaskEdit

Hey Koavf! It seems that you have left an opposition on the Wikiask page. Care to elaborate on that? Arep Ticous 06:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Global Conversations registration reminderEdit

Hi Koavf,

This is a reminder that if you have not yet registered for the Global Conversations on Nov. 21 and 22, please do so! Register here. Registration closes by Nov. 20. We will email you the login information for Zoom prior to the call. Thank you. Looking forward to welcoming you this weekend.

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: InvitationEdit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021Edit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

EmailEdit

Complaints about administrators and alleged abuse belong on the respective noticeboard, not in an another's email mailbox. Do try to be positive about what you see is the issue, and steps to compromise. When you are asked to stop and discuss, then maybe stop and discuss, I am sure that is your expectation where you administer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'd preferred to not air it in a public forum if it could be avoided and you had intervened with this same admin abusing his admin rights before on the same site, so I figured you may be motivated to intervene there but if you think it's better to have a public discussion, then that's what I'll do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have issues of abuse then that is the only forum where it will truly work, outside of confirmation conversations. FWIW protecting a top level template for admin only is not excessive nor abuse of rights, while abrupt it is not abusive for something that should be the case and a while ago. Please put your requests to the corresponding talk page and politely invite conversation. I would much prefer that there be a general conversation about the topic matter that you raised and how we can do better across the site. Again reflect on how you would want things handled where you admin, and means to a resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for your insight. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the #SheSaid Campaign 2021Edit

Dear Koavf,

We are delighted to share with you that the #SheSaid Campaign will be running again this year and you are invited to participate in Oct/Nov 2021.The goal is to celebrate notable women and add more entries on Wikiquote. Please have a look at some of the cool bookmarks we have completed and ready for you to print if you wish to do so. If you would like to have the editable version of the bookmark please contact me at Shoodho , visit some sample of bookmarks here:Bookmarks.For more information, please visit the campaign page here:SheSaid page If you have any questions or query please feel free to contact Islahaddow, Anthere or Shoodho

Kind regards, Shoodho Shoodho (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

InvitaciónEdit

Hi! Thank you for supporting the English translations of the wikisp central.

I would like to invite you to the group, as we don't have any members who are volunteers in Wikispecies and it would be nice to have members of that project. If you are interested, just sign up! Thanks, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 20:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Galahad: Gracias amigo. I was hesitant to sign up because my Spanish skills are only asi-asi and I don't work in Spanish frequently, but I have advocated for you before. Great work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
No problem about the spanish skills, the reason for focusing on projects in Spanish is by imposition of the Affiliations Committee, but we can focus on any other language of any small project that wishes to do so. Language is not a barrier and we can adapt to understand each other. On another note, thank you for the support provided during the contest!
The invitation is still extended, so feel free to join at any time. It would be great for us to have volunteers from other languages so we can support those languages as well! Regards, --Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 21:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Galahad: Agreed. I'm trying to make some things happen at en.wb and en.wn since we lost Pi zero, who was the main person driving those two projects (from my perspective). —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

AbuseEdit

From 105.112.104.0 and then deleted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiSP!Edit

Hello, Koavf

Welcome to WikiSP. We are a group of editors committed to promote and improve non-developed projects and their communities.

  Getting started
Active Membership Responsibilities

Extract of member functions

Description

You were assigned the category of "active member" because you have 300 valid edits and a time of more than six months.

You can:

  • Exercise your right to vote on proposals to the Board,
  • Make proposals to the Council,
  • Apply for a temporary seat on the Administrative Commission,
  • Lead or support events, projects or other initiatives for the promotion of our activities,
  • Belonging to the different components of the group and even coordinating them.


If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or leave a message at Talk:Wikimedia Small Projects in Spanish and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

--Villalaso (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

note re new itemEdit

thanks for your edits on the new template, {{Basic information}}. there is currently a discussion to consider the deletion of this temklate. could you pleae comment? thanks very much, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Global blockEdit

Hi. Since the "Steward requests/Global" is semi-protected, I was wondering whether it's possible for you to ask for the 85.140.14.80/16 IP range to be globally blocked? They have already been blocked on various projects, including: ru.wp, fr.wp, es.wp, wikidata, nl.wp, de.wp, etc. Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done my friend. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: WiktionaryEdit

Note: This is not intended as a personal attack to any of the users or admins involved in this debacle, it is just intended as a reflection on this unfortunate series of events.

I was going to reply to your answer on Wiktionary, but I decided to give it some careful thought. When I returned to answer I discovered that another admin, possibly in a temporary state of negative mental disposition, had disabled my talk page access. But anyway, here's the originally intended response:

@Koavf: I also noticed that there were several other policies that were violated in the process of making these blocks:

Likely violations

  1. WP:BEFOREBLOCK states that any contributor that is not being extremely disruptive or clearly acting in bad faith should be given a proper explanation of policies if they appear to not or have a misunderstanding of them. I would argue that at nearly every point during my series of blocks, no adequate explanation of the policies I was infringing upon was given, or the explanations were only given after my block had been set.
  2. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK is similar to WP:BEFOREBLOCK, but states that when a block is given to any good-faith contributor that is not violating an other block, ban, or being extremely destructive to the point where it was absolutely necessary, should be given an adequate explanation of the block they received that would properly explain exactly what the they violated, when/where they did it, the policy that forbids it, and how to avoid it whence their block expires or they are unblocked. I would argue that out of the three times I was blocked on Wiktionary (four now), that only the first one could resembles the kind of response any kind of competent administrator would give.
    1. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK also states that precise details, reasoning, and information on how to avoid future violations must be provided if "[t]here is information or evidence that may not be obvious, may not be fully appreciated, or may otherwise be relevant" which would argue most definitely applies to all or most of the blocks I have received in my time editing on the site.
  3. WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE
    Clear states that:
    Blocks should not be used:
    1. to retaliate;
    2. to disparage;
    3. to punish; or
    4. if there is no current conduct issue of concern.
    I would argue that some of my blocks almost certainly meet 1, and likely 2 and 4.
  4. If I also remember correctly (I couldn't find it, so this is just what I remember), there is a section saying to not mass-revert the past edits of blocked editor, unless:
    1. The editor mostly makes destructive edits/vandalism and does not make significant positive contributions.
    2. The editor is evading their block.
    3. The edits are not made by a single editor, but are instead made by a group of editors or a proxy or VPN that is used by primarily destructive editors.
    Another thing to note is that when my edits were first reverted after my first block, my edits to VIP (all of which were later blocked) were reverted, in addition to my other edits, this clearly goes against WP:TPG.

Possible violations

  1. WP:INCIVIL, looking at the "avoiding incivility" section, I would say that the blocks, reverts, and comments targeted against my account were possibly violation the follow subsections of that section: 1 (see 1.2 and 1.2.1 above [the first digit represents the section header - above is 1, this one is 2]), 3 - 6 and 8 (seem to perfectly match this edit), 5 and 6 (seem to match this edit), 7 (seems to match this block), this edit is a word-for-word match for 8. Moving onto the next section ("Edit summary dos and don'ts"), I see the following possible violations: 1 (basically every block and comment I received), 2 (Blocks 1 and 2 [and now 3] are violation of this as they presume guilt or bad-faith), 3 (no edits in particular, but the general pattern of editing by both admins in-relation to my editing implies a lack-there-of), 4 (most of the comments I received violate this), 5 (Blocks 1, 2 [and now 3], and this edit likely violate this), 6 (most comments I received are in a aggressive tone). The content in the rest of the page either closely matches my experience, or resembles it in some way.
  2. WP:AGF - when I tried to improve the "Bidenism" page, I noticed that the most commonly used meaning of the word was missing and I also noticed that the page included a definition that appeared to be there to push a POV rather than to be an actual definition, so I removed the apparent POV definition and added the common definition that was missing in the previous revision at the time. I also removed a few sources that appeared to exist only to push POVs. (at that time I did not know to not remove "dated" terms) Unfortunately, the my edits were reverted without explanation, so I asked why. After some waiting, I got answer explaining to not remove refs when removing a term, so I reinstated my edit. Then, instead of the admin assuming good-faith and explaining any potential issues with my edit(s), they appeared to assume bad-faith by blocking me for "POV pushing", while admit that I support Biden, this edit was definitely not intended to push a POV, if anything, it was intended to make the page more neutral.

Later, as I was working on thinking about this reply, I noticed that one of the admins previously involved in this dispute (Equinox), had disabled my talk page access. From what I have read, this appears to be in violation of the following policies:

  1. WP:INVOLVED and "When not to block" - not much to say here, just a clear violation.
  2. Not user talk page violation - unfortunately I could not find a policy on what is and is not considered user talk page abuse, but I don't think I did anything abusive at all.
    According to the summary left by Equinox, the disabling of my talk page access was because it was taking up a considerable amount of time, and while I do agree with this, I think this is a very bad reason for block, for the following reason:
    1. Induced demand - The need for a long discussion that wastes people's time would not be necessary in the first place if I was not block for invalid reasons in the first place or I was unblock after they realized that the reasoning was invalid.
    2. Inhibits discussion
      Commenting should only be considered abusive when it:
      1. disrupts other users,
      2. is off-topic,
      3. or is unnecessary or overly complex.
      None of which applies to my block.
    Another thing I would like to point out is that when other editor's refer to me wasting time, they usually refer to one of two things:
    1. Discussions whose purpose is not immediately obvious, but are used to improve things later down the line.
    2. Pointless discussions (usually related to blocks/unblocks that they [or other admins] started)
    I find the above point quite ironic because the admins and editors who complain about me starting "pointless" or "timewasting" discussions are usually the ones who start discussions that actually pointless and waste time

Based on the above evidence and the information presented in previous discussions, I think that not only should I be unblocked, but that the Wiktionary admins involved in this should possibly have their adminship re-reviewed.

And finally, if you find any issues in this, have additional information or updates, or just want to leave a comment, please ping me. Thanks. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't find issue with your assessment, except to say that many users on en.wikt will just ignore your en.wp-related reasoning with, "this isn't Wikipedia". I do not care for how this developed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
What about my removal of talk page access? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I do not see how that is required. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
May I have it restored? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to unilaterally undo that. I may talk off-wiki with someone about this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you refering to IRC, e-mail, or something else? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Email. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: @Equinox and SurjectionIlovemydoodle (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Koavf, please don't waste your time and just ignore it. This entire argument for the unblock is basically "according to these Wikipedia policy pages, I wasn't being disruptive enough to get blocked". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Surjection: That is not my argument at all - my argument is that (outside of my first day of editing [May 6, I think] where I made a few mistakes) I did not make any disruptive edits. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you stalking me?Edit

I just wanna know haha its like you followed me across wikis Mr. Wet Poopy Diaper Ass (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

To remove your trolling until stewards get to it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

HiEdit

Lock all:

Make sure you add these accounts to SRG as well. Tekkenismyworld thinks he can stop me (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)