User talk:Illegitimate Barrister/Archive 2

Mike Breen
A page that you have been involved in editing, Mike Breen, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Votes for deletion/Mike Breen. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Hello.

I asked you politely last year to revdel your edit summary here as false, misleading, and defamatory. Clearly, this must have slipped your mind.

I await your response. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Japanese poets
Risto hot sir has requested that I ask the community about what should be done regarding the numerous articles listed under Category:Japanese poets. You will know what I mean after you read a few and start to see the trend. They are all a possible copyright violation, they are all of non-notable people who don't even have a Wikipedia article, they are all from one source and they all clog up this category. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The voting time is over. And have I really asked JARNY to ask opinions?--Risto hot sir (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on MonsterHunter32
I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by  when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? You can read more about it at the link above, and at the other discussions linked in that discussion.

What would be most helpful would be if other editors could add comments to the summary table here Talk:India.

Since you are an admin, I would also welcome your view on the following.

Other editors and me have previously told many times that the following rule based on Template:Remove should be strictly observed by him:


 * All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

This really is the bare minimum that must be enforced. If MonsterHunter32 as a rule continues to refuse to do this, I don't see how any meaningful discussion of the deleted quotes is possible at all.

Please note that this was asked to him dozens of times, and dozens of times he continues to ignore it.

Can you please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes this? He has been told this dozens of times by multiple users, but I will notify him again about this on his talkpage (my last notification was promptly deleted by him). If he starts edit warring again without observing this rule, he should be blocked, or at least the page be protected.

Please let me know if you have a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks.


 * Observing the rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:


 *  has done blanked and censored dozens of quotes, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary)
 * He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
 *  has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
 *  has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged religious beliefs or opinions or alleged bias, using religious or political smears against me and others.


 * MonsterHunter32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. He will never admit that he was wrong, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. Discussion with someone who as a rule and always refuses to make the slightest concession that he might be wrong, or that others may have different opinions than him, is becoming a waste of time. Maybe even worse are the misrepresentations, dishonesty and personal attacks.


 * This is what other editors have said about :


 * "I believe MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive."


 * "I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer."


 * " I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "


 * "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...."


 * "Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ "


 * "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)


 * "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "


 * "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "


 * "and IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED."


 * "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "


 * "if you keep this up you will be blocked"


 * I have attempted to solve it with discussion with him, but by his refusal of even the most elementary things, like giving full reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage, he is making it extremely difficult. What really is needed, and I asked many times for this, are comments from other users on the quotes. Please see Talk:India for my latest attempt to ask others for comments.


 * Ultimately, I agree with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard:


 * "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.)


 * Please let me know if you too agree with this.


 * Wikiquote is not prepared to handle persistent, disruptive editors like who by his own admission is "constantly monitoring" me, attacking me for alleged religious bias or my alleged religious beliefs, and reverting all my additions with poor excuses that in most cases he refuses even to discuss. It cannot be in Wikiquotes interest when such editors can by constant edit warring and refusal to discussion get away with censoring and blanking quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's disruptive edits
What does User:Jedi3 hopes to achieve by repeatedly complaining instead of any actual cooperation? When I discuss he either abruptly leaves or keeps on repeating the same things. He keeps on edit-warring over and over and even started edit-warring right after User:UDScott block on him expired.

All of the "complains" of his based on poor fact- reading and hiding the truth again. Oh he doesn't mention some of the comments made by other users about him:


 * User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claiming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.
 * Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked.


 * While Jedi3 is talking about "comments against me', Jedi3 forgets User:Kalki has criticized his behavior as well.


 * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rules were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
 * He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.


 * While User:Jedi3 talks about "Bare-minimum", he doesn't stop to the do the most disruptive thing: Edit-warring. What's more he resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at, , , ,  and.


 * He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.


 * As earlier mentioned after UDScott blocked him for a week, 'he resumed edit-warring right after the block expired. See here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion.


 * There is nothing wrong in checking another editor when they are being disruptive like User:Jedi3. And what I actually said was me categorically proving I never censored him. I was checking whether his edits are non-notable and non-memorable. "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."


 * He claims I "refused to discuss". This despite me discussing at Talk:Somnath temple, Talk:Aurangzeb and Talk:India. At all of those talk pages my comment is the latest. You can check them.


 * I already suggested at talk:India, let's discuss all quotes one by one at the relevant article talk pages. He refuses to do so.


 * Jedi3 keeps on smearing and making false allegations of "censorship" just because I disagree with many of his quotes being relevant. That too me telling it plainly I have only removed non-memorable/non-notable quotes: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."


 * He says I'm done numerous "personal attacks" against User:DanielTom and User:Kalki. I never committed any personal attacks like Jedi3 who started calling me a vandal and claimed I was censoring baselessly. And Jedi3 doesn't reveal DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.


 * After Daniel Tom reverted me at Talk:India for removing Jedi3's vandal comments of baseless accusations and taking the issue to an entirely unrelated article while the actual discussion should have been at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles where I actually removed his quotes. His actions were very similar to Jedi3 by baselessly accusing me of censorship despite me discussing and compromising despite the quote being not notable, I asked him not to take sides with jedi3 over any ideolgical affinity. I told DanielTom about this and also tried to prevent another edit-war at Talk:India like it happened on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I also told him the same at his own talk page.


 * After Kalki reverted me twice at talk:India and warned me, that was my last revert. I didn't start edit-warring and reverting like Jedi3. At User talk:Kalki I asked him to effectively moderate and enforce the rules by blocking Jedi3 for his consistent disruptive editing. He kept saying he didn't have time but I pointed out I already made Jedi3's disruptive edits clear and if he moderated then this place would have been a much better place as i believe Jedi3 is not fit for here. I asked him to act against Jedi3 as the latter kept edit-warring right after after being warned and blocked by UDScott.


 * Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.


 * He has no problem in his reverts removing my quotes and later not adding them in "some cases" as he claims, but he only has a problem when I reverted his edits to stop his attempt at edit-warring at Aurangzeb.


 * Jedi3 tried to justify his edit-warring claiming he had no choice as "I wasn't discussing". This despite me telling him that I already tried to discuss. I never said there will be no discussion ever. All i said was I couldn't discuss all of them at once. I have already asked him to discuss the quotes one a time.


 * He keeps on telling me to follow Template:Remove. But when I asked him to follow WQ:WQ, he indicated he won't and said it wasn't a policy or guideline. template:Remove doesn't claim to be a policy or guideline either. Regardless I've posted several quotes and tried to discuss with him, But Jedi3 keeps making false claims and abruptly stops discussion.


 * DanielTom called me "annoying" which is an extremely negative connotation and a real personal attack. I told him about this. Then Jedi3 claims it is not a personal attack and calls my comments annoying. So I told him that annoying means irritating and harassing or making angry. i asked him tocontrol himself if he felt so.


 * Just a Regular New Yorker laimed in his comment that quotes canot be removed if they are sourced. He doesn't seem to have read tyhe policies.
 * Except Wikiquote, WQ:Q and Template:Fame saying this is for notable quotes. And the Template:Remove Jedi3 keeps talking about itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning." I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES?


 * Jedi3 points to the comment "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...." Except I never said such a thing. But I do dislike is Jedi3's disruptive edits and him not giving two hoots about notability.


 * "*"Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). " Jedi3 doesn't explain where it is from. I never made any misleading edit summaries unlike DanielTom's claims. i had plainly explained it was "vandalism" by Jedi3 at Talk:India. I [explained clearly Jedi3's issues were not related to [[Talk:India]] and he was not discussing where the quotes were removed from.


 * "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion " Will Jedi3 say it is Kalki claiming so about me removing his unrelated vandal comments at Talk:India which had nothing to do with India. I had even explained this to him in my only revert of his unlike jedi3 who still edit-wars after being warned or blocked. And I have repatedly said I don't remove any quote I found notable: "While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them."


 * Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes aren't even near to what he claims. This is aside from the fact that especially a user merely calling something as notable or poignant or witty doesn't make it notable. But then again he doesn't even care about the dictionary meaning of the words he's talking about. From Oxford dictionary Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Anyone who reads a dictionary can understand he's making it up about any of his edits being eloquent, poignant or witty etc. yet he makes the same claim at Talk:India yet again despite already being made aware his quotes are not near what he's falsely claiming them to be.


 * All policies say this website is about notable quotes. Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced. WQ:Q - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable." Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field." Yet he keeps on using the notability of author to say it should be included, despite WQ:Q saying "With regards to quotes about people, notability of a person as the subject of quote can be even more difficult to quantify, but it is clear that a person may be notable as a subject, even if that person has said nothing quotable." Not to mention the quote itself being notable criteria mentioned by it as well.

Jedi3 needs to be blocked for his constant disruption, caring for nothing except POV-pushing at all costs even if becomes disruptive, bad faith edits and accusations as well as false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for adminship
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions) - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 22:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Info/Assistance
Illegitimate Barrister: I recently made a few changes to the Charles Krauthammer page; if you can find the time, I would appreciate your advice on one of these changes. I was trying to code a link to the "Stein's Law" section of the Herbert Stein page; the link works (in the sense that if you click on it, it takes you to the Herbert Stein page), but I thought that the link as I coded it would take you to the "Stein's Law" section of that page, which it does not do. I should confess that I seldom attempt to include these links because of my limited knowledge in this area. If you could take a look at this recent change and tell me what I'm doing wrong, or direct me to a guideline for coding these links, I would be very grateful. P.s. congrats on your adminship (I've been away from Wikiquote for a while). CononOfSamos (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it should be working properly now. Might have been the apostrophe that was causing it not to work. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be online
Mind taking care of this? G M G talk  20:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion and blocking
Hello. There’s a few IP’s that make unnecessary redirects to Profanity. It’s all one person; they’ve been doing the same on my home wiki until I blocked them a few weeks ago. I’ll request that you check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and delete the redirects, and that you consider blocking the IP’s. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already been taken care of by somebody else. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see the Georgia talk page
Thanks


 * Commiserations on the belated response, but I removed your quotes because they were not notable. The people who made them had no corresponding Wikipedia article and on top of that their quotes were not quoted in any third party source. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

vfd
Hiǃ I'd appreciate Your opinion at vfd-voting of Most notable people.--Risto hot sir (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the consensus is clear, I'm afraid. My vote wouldn't do much, unfortunately. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

People by thing
Well, we now have Europeans as the only continental grouping not in Category:People by nationality, and Category:Britons as the only category not under a continental grouping, out of several dozen national groupings. G M G talk  11:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should create another subcategory; "People by continent" or something of that nature. Or maybe "People by ethnicity" is sufficient enough, I dunno. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and more or less standardized the relevant categories. If I missed one, lemme know. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm...well these are still primarily treated as nation-state categories. They include things like Category:Immigrants to the United Kingdom, which is definitely not about ethnicity. And Category:German Jews, which definitely is about ethnicity. They also tie into categories like Category:People by country by occupation. They're treated as a combination of "person, related to this place" (Wikidata:Q19660746) and "nationality" (Wikidata:Q231002), and not really treated as a function of "ethnic group" (Wikidata:Q41710).
 * If we want to make a parallel system for ethnicity, as we have with Jews, Category:First Nations people, or Category:Native Americans, then that's fine, but something like the category for Germans includes anyone closely associated with the nation of Germany, and doesn't really have anything to do with whether they are ethnically German. If it did, it would include large amounts of people with little or no association to Germany, such as w:Category:People of German descent.  G M G  talk  12:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've removed those. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You may also be interested in weighing in on this discussion where I've suggested renovating the whole system in a way more similar to Commons so this kind of thing is more immediately clear.  G M G  talk  12:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I prefer the "People of XYZ" over the adjectival forms. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia
Huhǃ This subject is really fire and gasolineǃ All links from Wikipedia have been reverted. We have Finnish and Swedish Bothnia, Finnish and Swedish Lapland plus Finnish and Russian Carelia, but it's no problem.--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC) - Have you noticed this? w:Wikipedia talk:External links--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to what's going on. What exactly is going on here? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's peaceful here - but not at Wikipedia. Just check the link aboveǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC) - Hiǃ The link at Wikipedia was reverted again. Why is this the only language that hasn't a link?--Risto hot sir (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alrightey, then. I'll go head on over there and check it out. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, after some brief digging, I think I'm starting to see what's going on here. From the looks of it, it seems that they removed the links because the Wikiquote pages in question that they link to have mostly quotes of low quality. Which, I can see their point, as to be honest, they kinda are, since most of the quotes seem to have been compiled by Greek ultra-nationalists with a POV to push from what I could gather, with many other such quotes being un-notable (e.g. un-notable and/or from un-notable nobodies). The best thing to do would be to clean up the page, removing un-notable quotes and such and/or adding good notable ones in their place. Maybe that will change their minds over on English Wikipedia. YMHAOS, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

IP vandals...
A bunch of IP addresses constantly bully admins such as Kalki, UDScott, and Tegel, and vandalize the Administrators' noticeboard‎ without explanation or remorse. No matter how many we block, another IP with the same MO continues where it left off. I request permanent protection of all pages they vandalized, including all talk pages (including yours, just in case). But something has to be done to stop that vandal permanently. WikiLubber (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Lord and Outcast (person)
On the pages Lord and Outcast (person), Rupert is adding the link. I disagree with this because redirects to, and despite my saying this in the edit summary Rupert continues to revert it. Could you weigh in on this?
 * same also with Righteousness
 * If it redirects properly then there's nothing necessarily wrong with it; this ordeal seems to be more a matter of taste than anything. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Username change request
Could you change your username to "Illegitimate Barnstar," I was thought that's what it said, until I realized what it actually says now, I think "Illegitimate Barnstar" makes a lot more sense in relation to the wiki. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 12:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I'd do that. – <font face="Georgia">Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You could either change your username, information here. Or if you don't want to do that, you could just change your signature by going here. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 20:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

– <font face="Georgia">Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)