User talk:Spike 'em

Archives

Index 1, 2

In case you would like to discuss sockpuppeting, I have created a separate archive of discussions about them

Hi, thought you might not have realised but there is no need to "fix" redirects, in fact the practice is discouraged. See WP:NOTBROKEN for more info. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that and wondered if I was overdoing it. However it does say:

Reasons not to bypass redirects include: * Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. * Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

both of which apply here. As background Lord's Cricket Ground was moved to Lord's as per WP:COMMONNAME with one of the supporting reasons being the number of [[Lord's Cricket Ground|Lord's]] links. Rather than replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]], I'm trying to replace [[redirect|target]] with [[target]]. If this really is not appropriate, I'm very happy to stop. Spike 'em (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Lord's I don't really have a view, it just came up in a couple of articles on my watch list. There are cases where it can cause confusion, especially if the "Common Name" is in reality more ambiguous than Wikipedia likes to think it is, or where it introduces a change in the national variety of English used in an article. There are cases where using the redirect makes it much easier to find and fix misdirected incoming links. By the way - by changing from "Lord's Cricket Ground" to "Lord's" you'll invalidate any future count of incoming links should the common name be questioned in future!

As I said, in this particular case I don't really have any problem with what you are doing, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the guidance. DuncanHill (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into things a bit more, I think MOS:NOPIPE is more relevant to what I'm aiming to achieve (I've not edited anything using a straight redirect). Thanks for the advice, nonetheless. Spike 'em (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for all the redirect work you're doing, Spike'em. We should have used Lord's from the beginning of CRIC with Lord's Cricket Ground as the redirect. I suppose the reason we didn't was because of the two earlier Lord's grounds and we wanted to disambiguate, but it was needless as they are commonly known now as the Old Ground and the Middle Ground. If you want any help, please let me know. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spike 'em

This is the screenshot proof about the stadium name

I contacted the stadium official. They said, "It was never Green Field stadium. It was only Green field project . Every one started calling it Green field stadium . Actual registered name is The Sports Hub, Trivandrum". The page name in wikipedia about the stadium is also wrong. The real name of the stadium is The Sports Hub.

You reverted my edit in wikipedia. but i was right. nothing wrong in my edit

I fully accept that there is confusion on the name, but the policy on Wikipedia is to follow what the sources use as per WP:UCN. Until the majority of sources call the ground The Sports Hub, then the article should stay where it is. They really need to tell this to the BCCI / Cricinfo / all the major Indian media sources. If they start referring to the ground as The Sports Hub, I would fully support moving the page / changing the text. I am trying to draft a section to put into the article to cover this. Spike 'em (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Spike 'em, Then I am providing the front view of the stadium and source link. The actual name, Sports hub is written in front of the stadium.

Source link of the news: The sports hub news

I accept all of this, but the point remains that Wikipedia goes by what is commonly used. I think this would be better off discussed at Talk:Greenfield International Stadium, as there is more input from other users there. Spike 'em (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Good. And at the broadcasting time, the commentators used the word The sports Hub, not Greenfield. also the toss time. You can watch the video from highlights of the match

I have done so already as part of my research into this: I saw Sanjay Manjrekar welcoming everyone to The Sports Hub. Spike 'em (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i am appreciating you. and i also wondered in your knowldedge about the stadium situated in my hometown

Hi, thanks for asking about this on my talk page. Back in the day I used to work for CricInfo and had direct access to the stats database, so I downloaded the relevant stats and plotted them using Mathematica. I don't know how easy it is to get all of the necessary stats these days - i.e. if there's a bulk download available or if you'd have to somehow grab and compile them all manually. Sorry I cant be more help! --dmmaus (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in generating the list, I used the API to download a list of all articles that link to batting average (backlinks), since that is what the bot is operating on. It returned 15,376 articles. This is somewhat less than the 18,000 you found via AWB. Can you describe how you generated the list, was it by category search, or string search, using the dump? -- GreenC 14:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened the last file I saved containing the articles that link to batting average, and it has 15,708 entries. I'll recheck my BOTREQ to see if I can explain where I might have got a different figure from. (If I do a search in AWB now, I get 15377). Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My initial BotReq says I found just over 15k links to Batting average which I then split into 3k cricket and 12k baseball, so is it possible you've added 3 to 15 to get 18? Spike 'em (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. My fault sorry yes that's probably what happened. Good it sounds like our numbers are about in agreement. Thanks! -- GreenC 15:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spike'em, check out Ian Johnston (cricketer) he has a wikilink [[Batting average#Cricket|average]]. How should the bot handle with a "#" .. leave as is? It could convert this particular case (and [[Batting average#Baseball|average]] and leave other #links as-is, but maybe there is a preference to link to the main batting average page? There were 4 like this in the 50 trials. -- GreenC 16:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a message about this on the BOTREQ page, as I found similar in another pass through non-categorised articles! I'd convert those to links to the page for the sport. There seem to be some links to a non-existent section on the parent page too.Spike 'em (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Position by round is deprecated" What do you mean by that? The position by round is shwon on other leauges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2018–19 Premier League#Positions by round and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122#Positions by round table. Other leagues may like it, but there seems to be consensus to not include on Premier League. Spike 'em (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Talk:2016–17_Premier_League#Positions_by_round,Talk:2015–16_Premier_League#Position_by_round,Talk:2011–12_Premier_League#Positions_by_round_revisited_(yes,_again!),Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_114#2017–18_Premier_League Spike 'em (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. This season county championship they added PCF, I modified some code bits and kept here in the sandbox, you must have a try this, suitable if we wanna use PCF. We don't know for this season or may be in future, PCF will be used. All set, I tested, it came good. Now what I'm asking is,

• 1) Shall we add a new third table as Module:Sports table/CricketCCPCF? Using the sandbox module I mentioned above. Assuming, PCF will be continued.
• 2) Or else, can we add that code bits in already existing Module:Sports table/CricketCC, assuming Just for one season No new module rather use show_pcf=yes/no"
• 3) Or else, shall we follow already created free style tables referring 2019 old county seasons, I created for current season (not using any modules template) ?

I can't edit modules, being a non admin user. Let me know your idea and further movement. Thanks :-) Kirubar (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look tomorrow, thanks for this. I'd be inclined to add as a parameter rather than creating a separate module. Spike 'em (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already added parameters required for PCF in the sandbox using the last one you edited in 2019. I remember added 6 lines or something. I think you don't have much to do. Anyway, Correct any errors if you found. Then we'll use a parameter for that. Thanks :-) Kirubar (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spike 'em,

What is the consensus on when to remove excessive listings from stat tables and replace the according information with "X players"? I remember you had done so a few times (example here) in the past, but after seeing another editor undo such changes on 2021–22 Premier League, I wanted to make sure of the general standard before I get into an edit war (again -- same user, different IP it seems). Thanks! Benjamin112 ☎ 17:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a consensus to do this, I'd just do it when it got to about 10 players and was never reverted. I've removed again and will check previous talk pages to see off it was ever discussed. I agree that 11 and 15 players tied for 8th place on a list of excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear that he will be considered a 1st-team player until squads are lodged with EPL or, as a young player (18), he could get into a matchday squad at some future point anyway. I have added him to U18 at this point. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to add him or not, or to take JRS and Hamman out of 1st team squad. Due to his age, he doesn't have to be included in the squad submitted to PL (or he will just be in the U21 section). I took the view that he was playing 1st team football for Derby and the club doesn't usually make such a fuss for players who will be youth team only, but the real proof won't come until the season actually starts. Spike 'em (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually.....the url (and the words above the time-stamp) may give a clue! https://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/first-team/malcolm-ebiowei-discusses-move-to-crystal-palace/2022-07-01/ Spike 'em (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, for my next point : he is already 18, so is not eligible for the U18 team (cut-off is 31-August). This probably affects other player, including Adaramola. Spike 'em (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out 15 of the 18 "Under 18s" who have a DoB on the club site are now too old as well, but I can't be bothered moving them all! Spike 'em (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think JRS can stay (for the time being at least); even if he's not named in the official squad he'll almost certainly be named once the season starts (assuming that he's not part of whatever skullduggery is going on to get Gallagher in) so can be added then. The age thing seems a moveable feast even though as we know underage players do not have to included at season start. Jach played for the U21s last year at age 26 or whatever; there's some sort of leeway but I do not care what it is at all. The various squads should probably be left alone until there's official announcements from the club as the info. Wiki provides is close to useless this time of year and club websites are no better. Eagleash (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your reversion of my edit to List of Test cricket records as I disagree with your rationale in this instance. Because South Africa's second innings has been completed and Rabada has currently has 310 wickets fewer than Broad, there is no possibility the table will change between now and the end of the match. Other tables on the page can be updated then where necessary, but I see no inconsistency here whatsoever as users can see when each table was last updated (i.e. this is not a global property applicable to the entire page).

Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not update the whole table so it was incorrect.Spike 'em (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the reason why didn't you say so?? I'm not sure how the error occurred re. Anderson's figures as I thought I'd changed that as well, but will fix it now.

Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done!! The point I made re the timing of the update still stands, but thanks for drawing the error to my attention.

Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Cricket World Cup for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking whether you have an eye on these two &/or drafts percolating? Like Phillips and Rodney, if make a appearance, might not pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT after the NFOOTY ambush, but I have seen quite a few articles via AfC & NPP which 'technically' fall short; got in "under the radar". Balmer might, having had a NIR call up. Hannam is edging closer to a move to main; playing regularly for Bromley. BTW I have changed vice-captain from Guehi to Ward at the club page. JW has captained in all 8 league (out of 9 games so far) that he has played in this season. Eagleash (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've not started anything yet for either, I'll have a look and see if I can find any coverage for them other than the club site. I did notice what you did with Ward, in fine with that. Spike 'em (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is 3 years old, but has a section on Gordon, with some brief updates. Spike 'em (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Draft:John-Kymani Gordon, not a huge amount outside of club content to use so far, so will need more refs added before it is promoted should he play soon. Someone else has created Kofi Balmer today, though I don't know if the coverage used as refs counts as SIGCOV. Spike 'em (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon; updated the draft, re loan Carlisle. Eagleash (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Giant Snowman has promoted it to live and copied in what I suspect is an alternate draft. I think this may be a bit premature, but have tried merging the previous info / updating. Spike 'em (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen it; seems another editor has also been involved and removed some fairly habitually-used templates and links. I have restored them. I am not sure why someone would change linked 'forward' to the unlinked 'attacker'. Eagleash (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are your views on the nationality of David Ozoh? The club and PL sites list him as English, but the page creator is adding Spanish categories. Purely going on club site, he moved to London at the age of 8, so has likely lived here longer than in Spain. I have no idea about his parent's nationality at the time of his birth, nor whether he has been naturalised in the UK. I've edited the article to remove nationality from the lead and categories.

I can't find any in-depth British articles about him (the South London Press usually runs an article after a debut, but haven't seen one), so I'm not convinced there is enough SIGCOV of him yet: the Nigerian articles referenced seem to just be rehashes of information put out by the club. Spike 'em (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language is rough in lead? You didn't explained why you reverted. My edit was better with better wording? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should help to expand that article instead of reverting without discussing with fellow watchers. Yourself can improve its flow and wording. The WC is next year and still that article have no logo, small info? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're tagging articles for revision deletion please identify the source that the offending material comes from and also the revisions of the article that need to be deleted. That way when me or another admin comes along to deal with it, we're providing a second opinion as to whether it's a copyvio or not, not a first opinion. As this one was pretty clearcut after I ran a copyvio search, I've done it anyway but please give us the information to work from. Nthep (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: looking into it, I see the revdel template has fields to show all of this, but isn't mentioned at the main copyvio page. I did mention examples of the problems on the talk page, but not in the most concise way. Spike 'em (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which article is having problems? Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparent in the example on {{Goalscorers}}, but was raised by an editor on 2022 FIFA World Cup. Spike 'em (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is now an unexpected gap in 2006 FIFA World Cup statistics#Goalscorers. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this article doesn't use anything other than the |Goals= so does not build the header text, which is what the line breaks were no longer separating on the article / template documentation. Spike 'em (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DJdjPollard15. The user who added the image is undoubtedly the same as the person who has been blocked from dozens of accounts. Per WP:DENY, we should revert all of their edits where possible, even if they look constructive. – PeeJay 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I didn't check their other contributions and agree with DENY. Spike 'em (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let me forget to look at them in the next day or so. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are continuing to edit today it seems, with similar patterns. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speeding towards ECP. Not the way to do it. It will be interesting to see what happens when they get it. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else has headed them off at the pass! Spike 'em (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are interested @Doug Weller: the user seems to be back, this time as Khantents, who I've logged an SPI for.... Spike 'em (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I won’t get involved because there are others with mote knowledge and last time the paperwork was huge! Doug Weller talk 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, hopefully the SPI won't take too long to get actioned. Spike 'em (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Why are you keeping out dated information?? [1], what you're restoring is now wrong. Govvy (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the addition of "joint" which I've restored, everything else being removed is valid content. Spike 'em (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you keen to remove the content about his testimonial? Spike 'em (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you really should review the editing history more clearly, do you think I intended to remove the information about the testimonial? Govvy (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same thing about you. You removed 1,800 characters just to restore 1 word. Spike 'em (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both in squad tonight, Whitworth starting; both have disappeared from the 1st team squad at the club article page; and both have been in 1st team squad this season. Eagleash (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just created Draft:Joe Whitworth in prep but needs a bit of work! Spike 'em (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

though someone else has done Joe Whitworth already, so will halt now. Spike 'em (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodman (not Gordon - he's still at Carlisle). Right clearer now; Whitworth is up to spec (ish) but might not survive if the sport-deletionists spot it... I am still wondering about the removals from the club page - could not see when it happened - Wells M & Rodney have also disappeared. All are still on the website as 1st teamers. Eagleash (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the effort that removed them in Jan (I think), also removed Ozoh. I've put a couple back in. Spike 'em (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found it eventually! Took a lot of trawling; also restored Balmer & Wells M. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spike em, I wanted to write to you on this subject and whether yourself or anyone you know has contacts within the club thar could tell the fans how they were able to sell millions of pounds of kit and other memorabilia connected with 1861 and change the crest if this had NOT been endorsed by the FA?? The citation quoting the FA was two months before the club were able to change their crest. As we know the FA website is not always up to date! You can see by the history section. But going back to the quote by them in April 2022, the club sold the kits to the fans from June 2022 onwards. Apparently the supporters trust meeting in October, a club spokesperson told the fans they had to pass procedures with the FA to enable them to change the crest. If that is the case, why can't someone from the club give that clear endorsement. Someone must know something? Supporters like myself have paid a lot of money on merchandise we all thought was the same club!!!! It stinks if that was not the case. Just asking if there was any way to you could help to get clarity on this?? Other clubs like Stoke (Ramblers) and Watford (Rovers) have taken foundation dates that have been disputed without a hugely detailed book written on the subject which we all believed!!!!

Many thanks for your help.

Catford Massive Catford Massive (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spike 'em, I would like to let you know that I have myself redirected the article I had created to the main article 2023 Cricket World Cup. As I had mentioned before, I had only intended to create this article for the benefit of the readers and the encyclopedia, but I can completely understand the point of view given by you and other editors. I have also never claimed ownership of any kind of article anywhere and my primary purpose has always been to improve the encyclopedia. I have also redirected the other redirects which were there to the main article as well. Hence, the deletion discussion can be closed as required by any closer, so that everyone else can go ahead and spend time in doing the most important thing which is to improve other articles and Wikipedia in general as well. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the revert to 2022–23 Premier League, cleaning up the mess I started. I can see my edit was appalling and shockingly wrong in so many ways. It was so factually wrong, I actually fear the onset of dementia (I hope that's a joke)! Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Spike 'em,

I was wondering about your reasons for deleting the content. You seem to be an experienced editor and thus I question whether it is that you think the text I added should be reworded or reorganised or whether you take offence to it. While Qatari human rights are abominable, it is certainly useful to document allegations and criticism against Western countries to avoid making the article biased and Eurocentric.

Therefore, I ask whether you might like to work with me in reorganising the content, in making it fit under relevant sections instead of simply discarding it. Scientelensia (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I double-checked to make sure I hadn't gone mad and I don't know what some website (?) I've never heard of says, Newcastle can't finish lower than 6th. They're currently 3rd and the only teams that can go above them are Manchester United, Liverpool and Brighton (currently 7th with 5 games to go). Tottenham, currently in 6th, have only three games to go, so can only get 64 points, one fewer than Newcastle have got now. Tell me I'm wrong? Skteosk (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm wrong. I triple-checked and realised Tottenham can get 66 points. Sorry, I think the figures must have just been swimming in front of my eyes or something. Skteosk (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asbox/sandbox/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q𝟤𝟪 21:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everything is well. Happened to see you pop by today; enjoy the break. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Everything is fine, other than I was getting unnecessarily wound up by various discussions on here, so I figured it was a good idea to take a break. Dunno how long for, I guess logging on yesterday was dipping my toes in the water again! Hope you are well too. Spike 'em (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased you're good. You know I've been in the same place before and found walking away really helpful. I'm not so bad at the moment - a Kent win has me happy after letting Surrey chase 500 the other day. It would be nice if they could beat someone other than Northants with a red ball now! Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suffering the exact opposite emotions after seeing Surrey collapse for less than 100 today! Spike 'em (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spike 'em. I'm about to indefinitely blocking user account @Spike 'em 2 for impersonating you. As I see you've just this last few minutes edited, please confirm if you're OK with that. I see nothing on your own userpage to suggest you've changed account so, for your protection, I'll block them shortly. Just let me know if I've got this wrong and I'll unblock it on your say so. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with me, so thanks! Spike 'em (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. They're indeffed for impersonation. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, it is one of the editors listed at /sock discussions, but I've not been editing much recently, so I may be barking up the wrong tree. Spike 'em (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite probably. Your use of a 'wikibreak' template could have highlighted that your page was vulnerable and that you wouldn't notice for a while. The edit filter shows them being blocked from a number of attempts to edit and redirect your userpage. Rather pathetic really. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I page move protected your page for a month and blocked #3. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And semi-protected your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Spike 'em (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Spike, I posted in WP:AN yesterday about your user space because of the oddity of editing to it, hence the response, regards Govvy (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, thanks! Spike 'em (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]