User talk:DatGuy

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi DatGuy! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move to Annunciation Catholic Church shooting was undiscussed, reverting is allowed per WP:RMUM. It's on the person wishing to move to start an WP:RM if they still want to pursue it after being reverted. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved four times, I am unwilling for yet another move to occur without a discussion. The current title has been set for the longest time since the creation of the article and is the de facto status quo. Any squabbling about which title is the status quo is ultimately the wrong version and unconvincing. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three previous moves were all to titles that included 2025 (and were at least compliant with WP:NCWWW), and were really just variations of WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. Instead of trying to revert the page move I could have simply came up with yet another title that included the year, but as I don't want to engage in a protracted move war, I felt invoking WP:RMUM was reasonable (and the "right way" to handle this). At that point it's on the person wishing to omit the year to start an RM and gain consensus.

If you don't want to assist, can you give me WP:PAGEMOVER and I'll take care of it myself? I promise not to edit/move war, and if challenged, to start the RM as you've suggested. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way to resolve this is to take it through a RM and reach a consensus which would then by definition no longer be a unilateral move. The current title is now the status quo, disagreeable as one might think it, but someone would always find fault with whichever version. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry I went to sleep and a page move happened. It's been less than 24 hours since the move. RMUM is for reverting undiscussed moves so I'm really not sure how this doesn't qualify… —Locke Cole • t • c 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the deleting of the copyvio content that was added by another user, but I think I also ended up refactoring it out of the article entirely. It looks like that IP user is trying to bloat the perpetrator section with excessive details. I have issued two warnings that they appear to be ignoring. But looking back with some of the other disruptive editors, I'm wondering if a short day semi-protect is in order to limit this sort of disruption from this and other editors? TiggerJay (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are in good faith. I recognise that it's been less than 24 hours since the protection expired, but I'd still like to see either malicious vandalism or a longer pattern of disruptive edits prior to protecting it again. In the meantime I've left the IP a note about plagiarism. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it is likely User talk:2600:1702:5225:C010:D01B:C5DE:4DCD:9E72 -- who was having similar problems adding this sort of content leading up to the last page protection. Although it looks like they said they give-up after a warning from another editor [1]. TiggerJay (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed that, which is putting my good-faith assumption in doubt. I'll keep an eye on them and if they make a similar edit I'll block them. They've had enough warnings. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They promised to stop, although overly contrite about it. I'm willing to (AGF) give them the benefit of the doubt and attempted to redirect them to uncontroversial topics for them to contribute to. But will also keep my eye on it. Thanks for the assist. TiggerJay (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Thanks for uploading File:Ysgol Aberconwy Official Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax: I'm a bit confused why you uploaded a new file instead of overwriting the previous revision. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 05:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your file is a JPG, the one I uploaded (to remove the white background) is a PNG. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DatGuy,

Greetings.

I see you are an admin making edits on the locked page of Bengal Files: The Bengal Files

Is it ok to request you to review a couple of things on the article on the talk page.

Regards

Computeracct (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this here -- [2] -- you may want to go longer, at least until someone (invariably) makes the actual article and then it spins off to the also inevitable AfD. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I set it to 12h because that was the time the protection on the Killing Of article would be expire, but that's been upgraded down. Regardless, I hope that by the time it expires there's a consensus about naming the suspect, and if not can always protect it again. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]