User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2020/June

International Council of Jurists

SpacemanSpiff, I've no intention to be involved in your edit war with User:Jkuldeep.009. Nonetheless, you removed a lot of well-sourced information from the article, including a whole paragraph about ICJ's complain to UNHRC. It looks like you intend to remove any information from the article regardless of provided sources, on the pretext that other editors are paid or information is "spam".

Specify your problem in sufficient detail on the article's talk page, because your "did you bother reading the edit summaries or check the bloody content?" doesn't explain anything to me. There is no clear explanation why the above-mentioned information shouldn't be added, neither in the edit summaries nor in the article itself.--Russian Rocky (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not in an edit war, and if you think the content I removed was well referenced then that's absurd. A private company gives an award and issues press releases and that gets in as "well referenced content"??—SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you and @Doug Weller: are in an edit war with Jkuldeep.009, a newbie editor who clearly lacks experience in editing (WP:BITE). When I tried to return the article to a stable version prior to Jkuldeep.009's involvement, you reverted my edit with the remarks "huh? what for? did you bother reading the edit summaries or check the bloody content?". Now you dismiss my concerns as "absurd".

Honestly, did you even bother to read what I wrote? It wasn't about ICJ's press releases, added by Jkuldeep.009. What I was talking about is the information on ICJ's complain to UNHRC, which was well-sourced (Business Today and The Economic Times' articles aren't ICJ'press releases; none of them is in WP:SPAMBLACKLIST as well). I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation, SpacemanSpiff.--Russian Rocky (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple reports

Since you are back now, you would like to take a look at the recent edits by Kongugirl,[1][2] who made them in violation of topic ban.[3]

The long term problems with Deepcruze, like I had reported here earlier. still remain as evidenced on talk page.[4][5] Capitals00 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

She had appealed the sanction to me, and I thought I'd changed it to include only edits around Kongu Nadu etc, but I can't seem to find any evidence of that. I will make that change, but given that it's my error here, I don't think I should impose any sanction on these innocuous edits. As for Deepcruze, are there any specific edits? —SpacemanSpiff 16:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Creation of Dalit Lives Matter, which was treated as a hoax on the AfD. Problematic creation of Vandalism of Ambedkar statues to which he responded here. Also see his responses to other queries. [6][7] There is a pattern of WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is admin shopping, please don't do that. Bishonen was alerted to these issues already (a few months back) per your links but did not take any action. —SpacemanSpiff 19:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

evading salt

The page Ragi Jani was salted by you. Some user, possibly related to the subject, is trying to evade it by creating the page at Ragi jani. Can you please look into it? Coderzombie (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's been deleted (I'll salt it) but there's also Draft:Ragi Jani that may need watching. —SpacemanSpiff 04:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian National Congress

Hi mate, hope you are doing good. I was just wondering if you could help me understanding any particular reason why all the articles related to Indian National Congress has been vandalised heavily. Be it politician, Congress government ruling states, universities named after party leaders. I checked few, regular happening events are mentioned as a controversies. Please help me understand. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)