Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard

User group statistics

There are archives of this Noticeboard:
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
The archives are searchable:

Welcome to the Administrators' Noticeboard.

This space is for anyone who needs to contact an administrator ("sysop") for actions such as protecting a page, deleting spam, or blocking vandals.
If you rather need to reach a Translation administrator, please use the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard instead. For general conversation, see Wikispecies:Village Pump.

Start a new conversation.

---

Report concerning 90.1.22.55

• 90.1.22.55 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at several diffs and don't immediately see anything that I can tell is vandalism. I'm not a taxon authority myself, so maybe there's something that I'm missing? Can someone determine if there's something inappropriate with these edits? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on fossil Hadrosauridae, but many of the IP's edits involve taxon names with Wikidata items. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC).

This edit would qualify, I think. The first four genera don't seem to exist (via a Google search), the fifth seems to be a synonym, and the sixth is listed by the English Wikipedia as a dubious genus. --WrenFalcon (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point: "Wxfghlambeosaurus" seems not-real... but that was by Special:Contributions/90.60.184.114, not Special:Contributions/90.1.22.55. Do we think this is the same person? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't catch that... makes sense why when I checked the contributions through that edit, it showed only one edit. I thought it was a temporary bug.

Personally, I think it's definitely a possibility, considering that the edits are to the same subject (and one of the same articles), and that the WHOIS reports are similar for both. --WrenFalcon (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

JWB error message

Attention fellow administrators: 1234qwer1234qwer4—Andyboorman—Burmeister—Christian Ferrer—Dan Koehl—DannyS712—EncycloPetey—Faendalimas– Floscuculi—Hector Bottai—Keith Edkins—Koavf—MKOliver—MPF—Mariusm– Neferkheperre—OhanaUnited—PeterR—Pigsonthewing—RLJ—Thiotrix.

As you may know, the JavaScript Wiki Browser script ("JWB") is a browser-based, online version of the downloadable Auto Wiki Browser software ("AWB"). At the moment, entering the Wikispecies' version of JWB shows an error message with the following text:

Warning: The AWB checkpage found at Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage is no longer supported.
Please convert this checkpage to a JSON checkpage. See the URL below for more information.
After creating the JSON checkpage, you can use "Special:ChangeContentModel" to change the content model to JSON.

The "URL below" referred to is Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage format on English Wikipedia, which informs you that a page named "CheckPageJSON" is necessary for the JWB script to work. However, here at Wikispecies we already have a local Wikispecies:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON page, and it's had the JSON content model ever since it as created by @Reedy (WMF) back in June 2021. The same is true for the related page Wikispecies:AutoWikiBrowser/Config, also from June 2021 and created by the same user (a member of the Wikimedia Security Team.)

As far as I can tell all of the pages and settings involved in our Wikispecies JWB setup are fine, and I don't know why this error message pops up. Ignoring the error message can be done by simply clicking "OK", and the JWB page is then loaded. I've tested it, and it works as expected.

Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC).

And I do not see any recent update that might have caused this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. However I've also just now cross-checked with JWB in Wikimedia Sverige (=the Swedish Wikimedia chapter) and the Swedish language version of Wikivoyage and the error does not replicate there. So something is obviously wrong here at Wikispecies, though unclear what. Hopefully it's not an issue that aggregates into something worse. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC).

The same goes for Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata: no error message there either. I checked them since they're language independent just like Wikispecies (contrary to the above-mentioned Swedish ones which are language specific). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 00:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC).

I just created Wikispecies:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/VersionJSON based on the page at en.wp. Does that help? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

(I think that page should probably be write-protected.) --WrenFalcon (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the page, @Justin, but unfortunately it didn't help. Also, to @WrenFalcon: thank you for notifying. I've now write-protected the page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC).

So maybe the first step is recreate all the relevant pages from en.wp, protect them, and then clear caches/restart browsers and try again? I'm at a little bit of a loss: I kinda/sorta understand some scripting and JSON, but I'm not an expert. The best I can do is reverse engineer and try to troubleshoot, but not make anything from scratch. :/ Any other thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday I was thinking along the same lines as you, about recreating etc. I haven't got time to make the actual changes today (moving houses soon, hence busy) but all of you guys are of course welcome to have a go at it. I'll check back in tomorrow, making any changes that may still be needed. (That is, if I can figure them out: JSON is pretty straightforward but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some extra MediaWiki spice involved here.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC).

Okay, I'll kick it back to you since you had the idea first and started the thread. If you can make the pages in the next 48 hours or so and see if it works, then please ping me if there's still a problem and I can put my tiny brain to it. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Natsfdsf3423

• Natsfdsf3423 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Not exactly sure if they've broken any rules (though that's for the admins to decide), but they left an ad on their own talk page. --WrenFalcon (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. If you ever see edits like this, they are just done by bots and they are complete trash that should be deleted and blocked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Long AI Discussion Today.

Ok in recent times I have been involved in training AIs in taxonomy and getting them to the point where on querie they can respond with a taxonomic framework for groups of species and answers around this that are actually correct. Towards the end in looking carefully at some of the problems that were occuring it was clear that machine reading of Wikispecies pages was a problem. So I started asking it to examine the pages and that lead to an even longer discussion on the issues. It also made some suggestions. Clearly its very used to ENWP over what we have been doing and some of the templates it suggested were ENWP templates not ours. One pat on our back from the machine if it means anything it could see that our pages were being analysed by experts completely, presented the full heirarchy and were generally clearly formatted. I found it somewhat interesting as it said not to import information from wikidata but rather be the information provider to wikidata to maintain the level of consistent expert level analysis of all nomencklatural and taxonomic information we do. This is what I have always been aiming at in the past. That is we build, authenticate etc the nomenclatural information and metadata, it goes to Wikidata and is then used across wikipedias etc. However..... (please note this is not a request to change anything just a discussion we probably need to have.... again)

1. Prime issue - references. It recommends we adopt the Cite-Journal etc templates rather than our method as our current method is too antiquated. It did suggest two ways of automating a fix to this. One was to develop an LUA Module to do it, second was a good bot. The preference is the LUA Module as it would get messed up by weird cases less often. But the AI said it could certainly take each reference template and convert it to a cite-journal etc template and insert it back into the page. So what do people think? Yes Andy you have said that for a couple of years, I do actually agree with you but have been very concerned with the amount of work to accomplish it. Maybe the LUA Module could help. Even the LUA method has to be watched like a hawk though there are too many variables involved its going to have edge cases.
2. It says we should use taxon categories, we have had that discussion before STH002 added many of those and we removed them. It was brought up so I mention it, but I think we should leave that for now. Also it was not reading our {{int:synonymy}} subheader at all as well as a few other things for overall formatting.
3. It recommended listing the Wikidata page for each taxon on each page, including unused junior synonyms etc. we already list the basepage wikidata q-number link. It also recommneds us being listed as further information on any wikipedia page, which is already done but I think it cannot read the wikipedia template that does this. Too much formatting I think makes it harder to machine read.

Anyway I would like to know what people think. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

small addit. Discussing this here first before doing it as an RfC or something if we seem to think it useful. So short discussion here also consider should we go to an RfC. Second it also suggested wrapping species genus names etc in <i>...</i> tags which basically means its not reading our templates there either. Another time though but this is more than just a formatting issue, AI can identify start and end of species names by these tags. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

RE: (1) Our current "cite journal" is a warning not to use that template, so you'd need a sizeable discussion to reverse that decision. Also, a lot of the primary literature for names publication and references do not come from journals. You have not indicated whether the AI is able to handle non-journal taxonomic publications. (2) There is no reason to implement categories, since properly structured taxon pages will already lie in a nested hierarchy. (3) Is this AI model already in use? I spotted an editor on Commons tagging images that "depict" certain taxa, and he was using basionym data rather than current names. As a result, pages were being tagged with names that are centuries out of date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I was using the "cite journal as an example but of course this also includes the cite book and cite web templates, though the later I would personally prefer not be used as a primary reference. Yes of course this would require an RfC hence I said I am not proposing any changes here. Just getting some comments to see if we should consider this. I agree on categories, clearly the AI is imposing Wikipedia organisation on us so the machine needs to learn also. Yes the AI is being used it is being queried for this type of information but its results are often mixed in what it thinks is the current taxonomy of a group. As for the basionyms they have no use except for detailed nomenclatural discussions and should not be on images its not releavnt to the usages of the image. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Rather agreed to a potential use of {{Cite journal}} on our reference templates. And more generally we should use more often templates for taxonomic content, e.g. User:Christian Ferrer/sandbox3. Template have 3 advantages: 1/ the data is potentially more easily extractable (e.g. by A.I. or BOTs) 2/ the content of each page is presented in a uniform manner (almost each experencied users here have their own way to write taxa pages) 3/ When you decide to change something in a template, you do it once in the template, and each page where the template is used is automatically updated. In addition for machine reading, maybe that the use of {{Reflist}} as in Wikipedia could be usefull, I made an attempt some time ago. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Citation templates

Since 2020, we have had consensus to develop more templates for citations. But a lamentable lack of willingness to implement that consensus, from those with the ability to do so. As ever, I remain wiling to do my part. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

In the long run I think we need to develop our own templates that are in principal based on the more wide spread ones but have some additional options for the higher detail we need here and possibly encompass some of the common but more difficult cases,for example when authors of a name are cited in the publication of another set of authors (eg the name Chelydera. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘Let's compare {{Shea, Thomson & Georges, 2020}} as currently used on that page, with {{Cite journal}} for the same work:

• Shea, G., Thomson, S. & Georges, A. 2020. The identity of Chelodina oblonga Gray 1841 (Testudines: Chelidae) reassessed. Zootaxa 4779(3): 419–437. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4779.3.9. PDF Reference page. 

vs:

• Shea, G., Thomson, S. & Georges, A. 2020. The identity of Chelodina oblonga Gray 1841 (Testudines: Chelidae) reassessed. Zootaxa, 4779(3): 419–437. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4779.3.9. 

While {{Cite journal}} still (as discussed previously) may need to be tweaked slightly to suit our style, it is perfectly capable of handing that use-case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The name is actually Thomson and Georges in Shea et al., 2020. Glenn Shea asked not to be considered an author of the name as he is not a turtle specialist but a nomenclatural scientist and historian. H felt it more appropriate that Arthur Georges and I received credit for the name. We actually asked him not to insist on that but in the end its his call. On the page I have just cited the paper at present but thats not quite correct. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to the issue of formatting the citation of the paper, in the references section. Which difference between the two versions I show above is of concern? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Replacing in the reference template the current wikitext related to the citation does not affect potential other sections such as the Nomenclatural Acts. BTW I am not sure that the Administrators' Noticeboard is the adequat place for that discussion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Your latter is a good point; shall we move to the Village Pump? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

If the paper is only cited as the name reference then the correct nomenclatural formatting of the citation in the reference section is Thomson and Georges in Shea et al. Not Shea et al. Thats the basic reason we are citing nomenclatural acts not just papers. I put it here first to get to those who have the larger vested interest before going to all with it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

That is not how it appeared before this discussion; nor, in my experience, is it common on most of Wikispecies' pages in such circumstances.

It doesn't seem to be mentioned on, much less required by, Help:Reference section.

On the other hand, the current Name section shows "Chelydera Thomson & Georges, 2020:430 (in Shea et al. 2020)"; this does seem to be common practice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the point here. All this has nothing to do with the use of {{Cite journal}}, the rendering of [1] is exactly the same than [2]. So if Scott Thomson was able to use that template without {{Cite journal}}, then he can use it in the exact same way with {{Cite journal}}. If potential issue there is, the issue was there before, and is neither attenuated nor accentuated by {{Cite journal}}. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That was my point; we are in agreement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think your not quite seeing my point. The example I gave one of my own papers, was not unique, it has happened infrequently but often enough in animal nomenclature. The Cite Journal template will display the paper and its authorship which is what I have put on the Chelydera page. But wrting out the primary reference in the reference list under nomenclatural practice it should be written exactly as it would be cited in for example ZooBank which is as a nomenclatural act and the reference to it. So under references, and using the cite journal template, this would automate to listing all the authors and writing it out as a journal paper reference. Technically its closer to a book chapter in reference style. As I said its not unique as the name Megalochelys atlas is in same boat and many others. This is a small point but it comes up enough that I would like to see Cite Journal handle several unusual issues in nomenclatural referencing.

Another is dates, eg a number of paper from the 19th century have 2 different years of publication often written for example as 1895 [1896] this occurs particularly in older proceedings where a paper was presented at the end of one year but hard copied at the beginning of the next, eg happens in Proc. Zool. Soc. of Lond. occasionally and a few other journals of the time. From a nomenclatural point of view, which is our job here, this is important as date and author are part of the name in Zoology. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 05:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

the reflist needs to show it as :

Thomson. S. and Goerges, A. in Shea, G., Thomson, S. & Georges, A. 2020. The identity of Chelodina oblonga Gray 1841 (Testudines: Chelidae) reassessed. Zootaxa, 4779(3): 419–437. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4779.3.9.

At present the Chelydera page is incorrect.

Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 05:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "At present the Chelydera page is incorrect": that's on you, you made that page. And {{Cite journal}} has nothing to do with that because it is not used there, so what is the point of that discussion? Begin by make the page correctly, and one will be able to see if one can do the same with "Cite journal". Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  I know I made it I am not blaming anyone. We are a nomenclatural taxonomy site not a wikipedia. If we are going to start using a template we borrow from Wikipedia we may as well get it to follow best practices in taxonomic and nomenclatural science rather than the mess on Wikipedia. I am not against this I brought it up. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I do see your point. I do not agree with it. I see no precedence for it on Wikispecies. Rather than merely repeating your point, perhaps you could attempt to justify it by demonstrating precedence, or consensus, for it on this project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I am a nomenclatural taxonomist, I write about and develop best practices in that science. We are trying to emulate that, what this project does and what it should do are not necessarily the same thing. If we are going to make a substantial change, we should take the opportunity to correct mistakes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

"demonstrating precedence, or consensus" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The template can handle such dates:

• Loaf, G. 1885 [1886]. Knitting Spaghetti. Zootaxa. 

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There are two "first steps" that would be good. Firstly, properly documenting {{Cite journal}} (chiefly listing the parameters and options); and secondly modifying it so that the default separators are commas and ampersands (instead of semi-colons).

@Koavf: You did early work on {{Citation/core}}, which the template calls. Can you assist with this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Andy, I just wanted to keep you in the loop that between this and fixing some lint errors at en.wq (see my talk page there), those are some longer-term things I want to get to. I'm not ignoring you, but I'm busy with work and doing some lower-hanging fruit on wikis. I do still intend to get to this and appreciate your efforts. I hate the "all I have is an update" update, but I also hate ignoring you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I've made start, including some examples. A tracking category would also be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning User:RLJ

Hi, to whom it may concern, I would like to request administrator attention regarding the behavior of user User:RLJ during recent edits to the page Acanthoprasium blocking the possibility to edit it. The user made multiple changes without providing edit summaries or proper justification, reverted contributions without clear reasoning, and enforced their version by protecting the page without prior consensus.

This is not the first time that RLJ has created issues for me. There is an ongoing pattern of controversial edits—particularly on pages where I am active—combined with a consistent avoidance of discussion. RLJ tends to revert some of my editions without justification some times, even when presented with well-founded corrections, and repeatedly ignores messages and requests for clarification, including on topics initiate, Even when, he starts arguments at the Village Pump that starts, I hope you can help me with this problem. Greetings AbeCK (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@RLJ: can you please comment and explain from your perspective? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This user has controversial ideas like reintroducing the deprecated "PAGENAME" template (which is still left in many articles), using the "Catol-Hassler" template without Hassler's authorship, and others reducing the quality of the articles. Since 29 Apr, 22:15, he is doing hardly anything else here than leading edit wars and reverting, reverting, reverting, including errors, ignoring my attempts to find consensual solutions and compromises and all in all in an unconstructive and pseudohierarchical way. If it was necessary to explain my reasons for changing the article I did. To calm down the situation I have protected my version of the article Acanthoprasium for one week. I think this version is acceptable for nearly everybody, and I would recommend to keep this article at this state for this week. --RLJ (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK:, RLJ is a generally trusted user and furthermore seems to be engaging civilly and is attempting consensus. For my part, I don't think this warrants anyone else intervening at this juncture and if anyone engages in serial edit warring and consistently introducing errors into this site, that person will be blocked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Koavf I'm willing to work by consensus, but that requires everyone to do so. If a user protects a version they're involved with without prior discussion or room for dialogue, I don't see how that can be considered collaborative.

I am not here to prevent me from participating either. I just ask that my right to edit and discuss on equal terms be respected. If a protected version is going to be maintained, it must be the result of real consensus, not unilateral decisions.

Acanthoprasium: Either we resolve this by opening up dialogue, or what are we going to do? Because so far, no formal avenue for discussion has been opened. AbeCK (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I respect anyone else feeling like there needs to be some mediation. I just don't see it as crucial now. Any other admin can jump in. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

RLJ However, I am concerned and upset that you have protected a version in which you yourself are implicated, without first exhausting a genuine attempt at dialogue or consensus.

I have made an effort to explain my edits when necessary, and I don't think it's fair to limit my right to contribute or to be labeled as controversial for defending a different point of view. I also think some of your edits are extensive, generating unnecessary text and even affecting the aesthetics without reviewing them, placing author tags where they don't belong.

If you had invited us to open a formal discussion, either on the article's talk page or in the Village Pump, to find a collaborative solution, this would have been different. We all want to improve the content, but instead, you are taking advantage of your power as an administrator by imposing this editing restriction. AbeCK (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The protect lasts for only two more days. I suggest no more edits until expiry of the protect, if @RLJ: or any other admin edits the page in the next few days then the protect must be removed. In the meantime could you please discuss your differences and try to resolve them. Andyboorman (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

┌──────────┘ @AbeCK, Andyboorman, Koavf, and RLJ: Please note that it's only the Acanthoprasium taxon page that is write protected, not its talk page. I've started a thread at Talk:Acanthoprasium#Discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard (continuation) for the purpose of resolving the issues at hand.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC).

Great idea thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning LeinadZodrack

• LeinadZodrack (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

LTA Exactamente XReport --Leonidlednev (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary template edits - request for page protection

More of a request for page protection, as the edits seem to be in good faith but possibly misguided. A recent edit (which I have since reverted) by an anonymous IP changed =={{int:Distribution}}== to ==Distribución== in Template:Native distribution. As this has been an issue in the past (see this edit to protect the page temporarily), protecting this page again should be considered. Also, I would look into whether there exists a translation entry for "Distribution" into what I assume is Spanish, as the lack of such an entry could be the reason why this change has been made, repeatedly. Looking at Special:RecentChanges, it seems a number of editors may be attempting to work on a Spanish-language version of certain botany pages, solely within the User namespace. It would appear that this change to the template was part of that. Again, this could be motivated by a lack of support for the Spanish language - I'm not familiar with how complete the translations are for Spanish. --WrenFalcon (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Protected: 1 week. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

After switching my display language to español (Spanish), and viewing Template:Native distribution, "Distribution" and "Native distribution areas" appear untranslated, in English. Seems like a good thing for the translators to add. --WrenFalcon (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Translations for "int:" have to be added on page Wikispecies:Localization.--Thiotrix (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Burmeister, Thiotrix, and WrenFalcon: I've added Distribución and Áreas de distribución nativa (Spanish) to the localization database. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC).

Report concerning Mjacksonj23erw

• Mjacksonj23erw (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 97.211.78.197

• 97.211.78.197 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Revicekagero

• Revicekagero (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --Jet Pilot (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, Burmeister (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning ChanzwBot

• ChanzwBot (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The user account is now blocked. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC).

Report concerning AloneSkibidicosinus3000

• AloneSkibidicosinus3000 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism. Skibidi LTA. XReport --SHB2000 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The user account is now blocked. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC).

Page moves by The editor 2345

Hello fellow administrators: 1234qwer1234qwer4—Andyboorman—Burmeister—Christian Ferrer—Dan Koehl—DannyS712—EncycloPetey—Faendalimas– Floscuculi—Hector Bottai—Keith Edkins—Koavf—MKOliver—MPF—Mariusm– Neferkheperre—OhanaUnited—PeterR—Pigsonthewing—RLJ—Thiotrix

Please have a look at this discussion: User talk:The editor 2345#Your recent and many changes on disambiguation pages. In the mean time, I've revoked their autopatroller rights. –Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: I have looked through the talk page I agree with the removal of autopatrol. Under the circumstances until we see at least 6 months of improved editing without any more of the issues that seem to arise with this user it should not be reinstated. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The user again acted in the same way by moving the Rana page. Despite the warnings on his talk page and the commitment made by the user himself in his talk ("won’t move any page like that again without discussion"). What to do? If no one objects, a punitive block will be made!! Regards, Burmeister (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There have been repeated warnings, also I have insisted he use edit summaries the reason for that is to ensure there is an explanation of what has been done so we can try to figure out valid from invalid changes. I have given them many chances and I do think they want to help rather than be obstructive. However, they have had a warning so block is the next step. I note they have responded to this so I will leave it to you if you are saticfied. I support either way. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

One last chance then. Burmeister (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 223.24.60.233

• 223.24.60.233 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverted/ deleted. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 2600:100F:A021:8696:19AA:19AD:376D:8929

• 2600:100F:A021:8696:19AA:19AD:376D:8929 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Done globally blocked. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 2600:100F:A021:8696:ADB4:51D1:E09D:85C

• 2600:100F:A021:8696:ADB4:51D1:E09D:85C (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Please nuke their pages. Hide on Rosé (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Done globally blocked. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Theindiamovess

• Theindiamovess (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Done globally locked, user page deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

IP range calculator

Fellow admins may find this "IP range" calculator handy, when needing to do an IP-range block.

https://ftools.toolforge.org/general/ip-range-calc.html Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. A nice and simple tool. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 18:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC).

┌──┘ In addition to the IP range calculator, the JavaScript on this Meta-Wiki page might prove useful as well: User:Dragoniez/MarkBLockedGlobal. It's used to mark locally and/or globally blocked or locked users, either registered or IPs. More specifically it adds the following features:

• Marking up registered and IP users that are locally blocked – (this feature is always enabled by the script)
• Marking up globally locked users – (this feature can be disabled)
• Marking up globally blocked users and IPs – (this feature can be disabled)

I addition it can also be configured to add the following functions:

• Marking up IPs in locally blocked IP ranges – (this feature is disabled by default)
• Marking up IPs in globally blocked IP range – (this feature is disabled by default)

As noted in the script's documentation, the script should be added to your to global.js Javascript file at Meta-Wiki, since the script saves the user configuration into your global preferences. I imagine this is done in order for the script to "see" globally (b)locked users and IPs, and not only local Wikispecies ones. Hence there's practically no advantage in installing it into your local common.js JavaScript file here at Wikispecies. Note that both of the above .js links points directly to your personal global.js and common.js files at Meta-Wiki and Wikispecies, respectively. You're welcome.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC).

Report concerning ForestNationHyd

• ForestNationHyd (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Promotional username. Promotional userpage. XReport --Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning User: Scott Thomson (Faendalimas)

Hi, to whom it may concern, I would like to request administrator attention regarding the behavior of user Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) regarding the edits on Selenicereus trigonus page, he shouldn't take sides now, since this user is an administrator, he should join forces, not delay or subtract them.

First, he didn't review previous edits, neither mine nor from another users. Despite the issue being discussed on the Village Pump (as can be seen here), he directly removed the deletion tags I placed without offering a clear reason, let alone clear arguments or alternatives. This action, far from helping, only unnecessarily delays the process.

Furthermore, it's important to emphasize that once a discussion of this kind is underway, the most sensible thing to do is to avoid intervening on the pages involved until some kind of consensus is reached. Making decisions in the middle of a debate, as he did, complicates monitoring and muddies the waters. These edits, where they don't provide context or clear proposals, seem deliberately forced. AbeCK (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I stated it should not be a speedy delete, not that the page should not be deleted. I retained your reasons for the speedy delete and your edit comment so people could take it from there and come to a consensus. If I did not review the previous edits how could I possibly know what you said in the page, in the template and in your edit comments in the history. I am also aware of comments by Andyboreman and Tommy Kronkvist. The template I removed made a request for a Speedy Delete as a bureaucrat it is one of my jobs to make these decisions. The way forwards is to finish the conversations on the issue to everyones satisfaction and if it is at that point decided it should be deleted I will happily delete it.

A point to make. You said do not intervene when discussions are under way, yet you made a speedy delete request while such discussions were underway. Speedy Deletes should be very clear, with no discussions to argue against it. The discussion was underway before you added the template, your template addition was reverted by Andyboreman, then you reverted this edit. It is not clear that there is 1. no discussion ongoing about the deletion, and 2. that this situation is appropriately handled by the speedy delete template. This is why I denied that request. So get consensus and then request delete. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Faendalimas, I'm not agree, removing the speedy deletion tag without completing it can disrupt the process. On Wikispecies, this tag serves to indicate that content meets clear criteria for speedy deletion, facilitating community review, and it doesn't help that you don't offer any alternatives.

As a bureaucrat, your role is to ensure the process continues in an orderly manner, not simply halt it. If the intention is for the discussion to continue, the correct thing to do would be to keep the tag in place until a clear decision is reached, so that it is transparent for everyone. AbeCK (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Taxonomical data on redirect pages

Attention fellow administrators 1234qwer1234qwer4—Andyboorman—Burmeister—Christian Ferrer—Dan Koehl—DannyS712—EncycloPetey—Faendalimas– Floscuculi—Hector Bottai—Keith Edkins—Koavf—MKOliver—MPF—Mariusm– Neferkheperre—OhanaUnited—PeterR—Pigsonthewing—RLJ—Thiotrix—Zinnober9

Fellow admins and also 'crats. Please review the comment thread on the above section of the Pump. Please advise me if I am being incorrect or unreasonable. Clearly I am having to back off the discussion as it is now getting rather personal. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman:, Both @Tommy Kronkvist: and I have been involved to degrees perhaps a fresh look from uninvolved crats could help such as @MPF: or @OhanaUnited:. From my perspective this has gone far enough though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 10:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on both points and thanks. I hope both taxon pages remain unedited for a few days or even weeks until the dust has settled. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am fully uninvolved and made a warning [3] to AbeCK, I don't have a solution for potential pages/content for synonyms, however let me know if my warning is not respected. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of all of the (many…) ongoing discussions regarding this whole issue. Unfortunately I'm currently moving house, hence have an uncommonly limited time left for Wikimedia questions. I'm sorry for not being able to contribute as much as I should (and normally do).
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC).

Among all the answers, which at this point are difficult to understand, considering all the links you've mentioned me, what exactly do I have to do with this discussion? @Andyboorman, @Christian Ferrer, @Faendalimas, @Pigsonthewing and @Tommy Kronkvist AbeCK (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Have any of you notified User:AbeCK that they are being discussed here? It's really not on to conduct such a discussion without doing so, whatever the circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

​ Also note that the discussion at User talk:AbeCK#Avoid personal attacks started by @Christian Ferrer (per above) is still ongoing. It of course involves @AbeCK, and earlier today he as well as myself contributed to it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC).

Nowhere in that discussion is this one mentioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That's partly why I pinged AbeCK in my above post, making them aware of this discussion. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 12:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC).

I also just wrote a few words about that in AbeCK talk page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

┌──────────┘ I seems like @AbeCK: and I have reached an impasse. Please see the Village Pump. I advise a {{Disputed}} on both pages with notes and AbeCK wants a clean redirect with just Selenicereus triangularis accepted. I think it is time for arbitration or a vote. Please advise. This goes beyond this single taxon page as, unsurprisingly, Cactaceae is littered with such taxa. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​I agree with @Andy Boorman. A quick and final session of talks involving yet uninvolved administrators is welcome, as long as it's followed by arbitration or a vote. For clarity, the Village Pump discussion can be found here: Wikispecies:Village Pump#Taxonomical data on redirect pages. –Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm with @Andy too, time for two pages, for good or for bad. Actually, the real difficulty is not the having two pages for acknowledged synonymous taxa, but which one (or both??) is the link from the genus page. This is worse as having two listings to the same taxon under two names messes up any species count for the genus (or genus count for the family, etc.), and linking to only one is taking a side in the argument. Could some clear way of indicating one taxon is involved be worked out? - MPF (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi again:

To @Andyboorman:

I still disagree with keeping these edits on Selenicereus trigonus. This page already has a tainted history (even more so given everything that happened with our edits and the discussion in general), and continuing to edit it only exacerbates the situation. Its content has already been integrated into Selenicereus triangularis, and from then on, it should be established as a clean redirect. There's no reason for this; first of all, we both agreed to merge the information, which I did a few days ago.

To @Tommy Kronkvist and @MPF:

A good part of the problems that you are pointed out is exactly those, except for some parts in which you agree with Andy. Any comments or templates like {{Disputed}} should be placed solely on Selenicereus triangularis, which is where the relevant information is gathered. Selenicereus trigonus should not be further edited or linked to from its genus page (Selenicereus), Wikidata, Wikipedia, or any other WikiProject page. That page should remain a clean and orphaned redirect with no external links. Any expansion or detail regarding the scope of the taxon should be developed exclusively on Selenicereus triangularis, where more up-to-date edits by both myself and Andy are already available. I reiterate that any note and anotation about both Selenicereus triangularis should be placed in an additional section, and that comments like the one Andy made with CACO should be included there. AbeCK (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Before dealing with blanking and deleting Selenicereus trigonus, we must consensually decide whether or not the name is in synonymy, there is uncertainty or is it a segregate. I apologise to @AbeCk:, if I initially indicted the former, as having now reviewed the evidence once again I now think that there is sufficient uncertainty to recommend retaining the page and placing it back on the Selenicereus species list. A fellow editor pointed out Gutiérrez-Rodríguez et al., (2022). which indicates both species names were used at the time of publication. I have added its template on the genus page for all to read, as well as Hunt (2016) and WFO for balance. BTW Selenicereus trigonus (Haw.) S.Aria & N.Korotkova, Phytotaxa 327(1): 29. (2017) was published without full and direct reference to its basionym, but Art. 41.8.(c) applies, in other words the error is correctable (IPNI, 2025). Andyboorman (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

┌────┘ Dear contributors. This discussion has become rather fragmented, simultaneously taking place on at least three different talk pages and noticeboards. I propose we continue solely in the Village Pump thread, since the Village Pump is Wikispecies' main user forum and the original question (regarding the "Dispute" markings etc.) can be of value for all editors in the entire community. (Note that I've mentioned this on AbeCK's user talk page as well, in order to make them aware of my suggestion.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC).

On the Pump, I have proposed that this debate be closed and a vote taken. I would like an Admin to formally propose a vote, unless there are objections, of course. Kind Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 216.119.38.229

• 216.119.38.229 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done by someone else —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Medfertility1

• Medfertility1 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done by someone else, reporting at m:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Andyboorman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

"I’m not trying to escalate things" Clearly you are; this noticeboard should only be used when issues cannot be resolved through discussion on talk pages (or for egregious vandalism, which this was not). No admin action required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Hi, I’d like to ask for the support of an admin regarding a situation that just happened on my talk page. Earlier today, @Andyboorman left me a message accusing me of having removed the {{Hunt, 2016}}, like he is writing on my discussion/talk page in this topic called Why?.

The issue is that I haven’t touched that template in any of his editions, and I haven’t been making controversial edits at all. In fact, ever since Andy commented in the discussion about Taxonomical data on redirect pages here, I’ve stayed out of editing anything related until admins weigh in on that thread.

The only exception is a small edit I made to Selenicereus article, where I just removed an extra blank space. That’s literally it. I didn’t remove or change any references. My contribution/editions page is open to anyone to check-nothing I’ve done supports the accusation Andy made.

What worries me is that this isn’t the first time Andy posts messages on my talk page that feel unnecessary or confrontational like especially this. Some time ago I asked him on his or my user talk page (I can't remember very well) if he could help me archive or organize my own discussion page (as it’s getting long and cluttered), but I never got a reply. Now, on top of that, I’m being accused of something I didn’t even do.

I’d appreciate it if an admin could take a look. I’m not trying to escalate things, but If someone makes a public accusation, especially on a user’s discussion page, they should at least check the facts first. I’d also still appreciate help editing my page if is possible.

Thanks for I leave this open to anyone who wants to help me. AbeCK (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already made an apology for my error on their talk page.. To err is to be human. I once again apologise, this time in a public forum. Hope this suffices. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Report concerning 182.178.120.110

• 182.178.120.110 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Please fix

The template Catol-WCVP does not always source WCVP, but also World Plants. For example, Deamia chontalensis. These two sources are completely different entities. The first is RBG Kew and the later is curated by Michael Hassler. If this can not be fixed then the template must be deleted, as it is a copyright infringement, as well as being scientifically misleading. I have posted this on the Pump as well. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

See Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Please_fix for discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Anchaldigital

• Anchaldigital (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done by someone else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 96.35.74.197

• 96.35.74.197 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Cuumora

• Cuumora (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 2603:3006:1801:C800:F403:F47D:AD11:DF92

• 2603:3006:1801:C800:F403:F47D:AD11:DF92 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done by someone else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Nanhost2

• Nanhost2 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Hannahterroric

• Hannahterroric (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Blocked by admins. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning SEObacklink963622

• SEObacklink963622 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Deleted page, did not block. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 2003:D7:870E:7511:2CC4:53CE:8042:F7BB

• 2003:D7:870E:7511:2CC4:53CE:8042:F7BB (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --Aqurs1 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Burmeister (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning Akande1234

• Akande1234 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Spam XReport --MathXplore (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 91.186.253.17

• 91.186.253.17 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --Ternera (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Online Flora of Mexico

Would it be possible to produce a searchable template for The online Flora of Mexico: eFloraMEX? A sample result is Turbinicarpus saueri subsp. ysabelae (Schlange) A. Lüthy. Any help appreciated, as it is an amazing database. Unfortunately I can not even find a "how to cite us" protocol. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I have requested a property in Wikidata: d:Wikidata:Property proposal/eFloraMEX ID, once created we can add it to the {{Authority control}} template.

This is not an admin matter; please ask in future on Wikispecies:Village Pump. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I have now added the request to the Pump. I requested here as most template authors are admins. Andyboorman (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Elliovirales

The page Elliovirales (2023) should be remaned Elliovirales (page to be deleted). A1AA1A (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Why does it need to be deleted? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 2601:243:D01:1F20:B93F:2C6F:CA89:91DD

• 2601:243:D01:1F20:B93F:2C6F:CA89:91DD (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --Divinations (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @PeterR. Hide on Rosé (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:96

• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:96 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Report concerning 107.77.199.208

• 107.77.199.208 (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)