Talk:University of Oxford

GA Reassessment

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/University of Oxford/1}}

Edit protection request

I've requested an increased level of page protection due to the high level of IP vandalism/unconstructive edits with nonsense edit summaries. Robminchin (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

But(s)

Chatting: If that's what you want. You seem passionate about hanging these "but"s out to dry. Is that what you want? User:Robminchin I think it is rather contrasting in this instance. For me, as long as it is acceptable it should be allowed. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:2A5E:3804:8C5D:507F (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not a contrast, but an accumulation, so I've boldly change the "but/however" to "additionally". Bazza 7 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Captivating. I'm Gen Z and there is a new strategy in using 'but'(s) that I'm trying to teach others now. Thank you, and, I agree - some 'but's are better than others but it's quite a stink with some Wikipedia contributors. I don't know if it's a chicken and egg thing but new standards from Gen Z help raise these opportunities. Thank you for the gloss (as we say). If the article can take "additionally" without any argument, I'm fine with that. It does seem like it's only a big 'but'(s) thing. Two options for the price of one is not bad though. I'll watch to see if any other opinions on this women section or other 'but'(s) I update elsewhere. New opportunities daily as I skim the articles. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Oxford Comma

Contemplating: We're literally not allowing Oxford Commas in the article about Oxford University? Some might call that academic treason.User:Robminchin 2601:646:A200:E5B0:CC31:77A6:4AC4:9C02 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Styles are not changed without discussion. OUP style includes the Oxford comma (which is what gives it the name), but this page is not in OUP style,as can be seen by looking at all the -ise spellings that become -ize in OUP style. Robminchin (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Certainly there are a lot of Oxford commas in this article. Seems like you erased my edit out of spite. Are you suggesting the article can't handle any new Oxford commas? I've put in two Oxford commas and it keeps being erased. What's a fair offer? User:Robminchin I think it's hilarious that the geniuses writing the Oxford University article outright chose not to use OUP. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:DD05:8446:1228:30D2 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The are many serial commas, not all are Oxford commas. Serial commas are used where necessary to avoid confusion, like the one you tried to remove earlier that was reverted (by another editor). Oxford commas are serial commas used stylistically where unnecessary for comprehension. Robminchin (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Creative way of acknowledging there are other Oxford commas in the article. So, you were just abusing my edit. There's def this small ring of contributors deciding on their own not to listen to new advice. User:Robminchin 2601:646:A200:E5B0:DD05:8446:1228:30D2 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I was particularly amused by the edit [1] which introduced the phrase "in 1981 ," (sic). If you want to have strong opinions on one aspect of punctuation then I suggest that you also pay attention to correct spacing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

As pointed out before, Wikipedia policy is too retain existing styles, so if you try and edit in a new style existing editors are likely to revert you. Robminchin (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Calling it out though because you're literally admitting there are other Oxford commas but saying somehow OUP isn't in play. You wouldn't think you'd need to ask if there were others. I shouldn't have to ask if the King's English is available for two edits in some pitched battle for the soul of the Oxford article. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:FE4C:372:8EB:C761 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

British English uses serial commas where necessary to avoid confusion, which is standard in all varieties of English. There may be other unnecessary commas that have slipped in, but that doesn't mean we should add to them. It's clear from the spelling used that this article doesn't follow OUP style, which it shouldn't as it is not published by OUP. Wikipedia is written in national varieties of English per WP:ENGVAR and the OUP style is a publisher's house style, not a national style. Please learn the difference between British English grammar and American English grammar before editing the grammar of articles written in British English. Robminchin (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Reform Section

Challenging the need for this paragraph at all. The other paragraphs in the reform section speak directly to reform issues. This last paragraph seems only to highlight perceived benefits of reform without actually saying so. It may not be nice to remove the entire paragraph, but if it's warranted or not fully contextualized then we should update it with corrective action. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that looks out of place and is bizarrely vague in when research doctorates were introduced (the first were DSc and DLitt – 1900, which is arguably at the end of the 19th century rather than in the first third of the 20th century) and oddly specific about the mathematics DPhil without mentioning other ones at all (introduced 1917). However, something about the introduction of these degrees probably does belong there. The omission of the 1919 Royal Commission and the resulting 1923 Act is also strange, and would nicely bracket the introduction of the research degrees into the reform period. The last sentence (about distinguished scholars) looks like fluff that has escaped from the notable alumni section. Robminchin (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Political outcome, I suppose. Am I missing something in your response? Are you suggesting we can eliminate this paragraph in its entirety without much blowback? My girlfriend has started helping me coordinate some of these edits - although, she hasn't been very good at even the simplest of tasks. I'll run it by her and see what she says. If she agrees, then I'll delete the paragraph. If she disagrees, well, I don't actually know . . . hehe 209.214.137.154 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

We could delete it, but it would probably be better to improve it – as is often the case with Wikipedia. I'll have a look later. Robminchin (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Crafting another paragraph could also be helpful. If it works then more power to us and if others have issue with it then we're back where we started. Crafting it to make some sense and fit in with the rest of the subject of reform. Like you said, it is bizarre. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If We Don't Get What We Want

Statistically speaking it seems quite obvious that contributors may not always get what they want. Often split between English Noveau and sticks in the mud who prefer a less radical approach to linguistic evolution. The talking helps but we often find ourselves begging for a particular update to carry through especially in these British articles which are not few. It grinds my gears and locks my jaw but also reminds me more of why each generation strives to promulgate a new system of grammar. The tired phrase awaken to each morning of "This does not belong here." Not just here at Oxford but any article can yearn for the battered beg of crunchy academics. Thank you for listening. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:946B:895B:AE2F:65AD (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

IP editor, I think your first sentence is correct. Wikipedia is crowdsourced, so not everyone in the crowd can get exactly what they want in a particular article. I experience the same frustration myself, but try to get over it as I couldn't change the way Wikipedia works even if I wanted to. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Creative frustrations aside; it is fascinating the value some contributors place on it. It doesn't seem necessary considering the generational evolution that should take hold without absurd taxation on free-ideas. But others believe there is a right answer to grammatical intrigue even when two or more answers may exist for the same question. There seems to be no honor in it. It's thankless as an enterprise to even try. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Cramping my own style here but I realized I should really read these Wiki docs everyone keeps discussing - at least one or two of them. I was just on another article and didn't get what I wanted. I discussed it with an American woman contributor and she pointed to so many Wiki docs it about made me dizzy. She could start nearly every argument with a Wiki proof. I ended up voting for her edits she was putting in on the article. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:42A3:822:6E6A:235E (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Teaching in Oxford in 1096

The University of Oxford article says Template:Tq Hopefully this wording can be made clearer.

I looked for 1096 in the first volume of the History of the University of Oxford (via Google books) for more detail and found a discussion of masters at Oxford between 1096 and 1209 based on the Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to 1500.

I then looked for 1096 in the Biographical Register (via Google books) and found that that Theobald of Étampes Template:Tq.

I then looked for Theobald in the History of the University of Oxford, which argued that he was teaching in Oxford before about 1097.

Template:Reflist-talk TSventon (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Informally: Oxford

I agree with Graham11 and William Avery that Template:Tq is unnecessary. Most universities in England are called Foo University or the University of Foo and can also be referred to as Foo. King's College London, Template:Tq, is different because it is also referred to by its initials. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Creative differences I suppose. I've seen it elsewhere for sure. To pop up as a question now when my 'colloquial' edit was there for a while seems arbitrary to be honest. Identifying the informal makes sense in my book: it adds value. Saying "Well, people should just know." is kind of stupid - if you really think about it. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:2C70:67A:D5B3:12C9 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I started this discussion today because your addition on 16 May had been reverted here on 17 May (UTC). You think the addition adds value but three other editors disagree, so at present consensus is against it. TSventon (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't argue with that which is why I let it go. The information is helpful to the lay reviewer. It's good to have informal information even if it's just to clarify that which you should already know in all cases. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:2C03:6190:93F0:E22C (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Causation is key I see. I just got reverted in another article too with someone saying 'informally' or 'colloquially' are not relevant enough to make anything better. But hey, to each their own. I'll just keep trying. Even if most of these are DOA. Nothing to lose. Thinking it's gonna be tough to make gains. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:2C03:6190:93F0:E22C (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Numerals on this page

Clarifying for the {page} here. I'm not {Jonesin'} for an argument, but there was an {insistence} earlier that numerals were the correct usage. I think it was Bazza7 who made the insistence based on MOS:Numerals - check out the history. I felt dumb at the time and wasn't even a part of the original disagreement, but I signed off on numerals being the adequate update style for the article. I catch this faux pax today and now it's reversed back to a different understanding like poof! Can we vote on a numerical order for this page, please? It would certainly be helpful so we don't have to fight and destroy all the people's deposits of comments trying to enhance the character of the page. Using numerals versus letters doesn't interfere with the aesthetics or understanding at all. It's like a real numbers battle going on. hahaha 73.158.120.223 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

IP editor, as Bazza 7 says, we should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words (MOS:NUMERALS), which says

• Template:Tq
• Template:Tq Template:Xt or Template:Xt, Template:Tq Template:!xt.

"two" in Template:Tq is the only number in its paragraph, apart from years, so I believe it should be spelled out. TSventon (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Ican see what you're saying here, but it seemed {well established} and now we are establishing something "new" and that does create consternation. I'd need to review this MOS:Numerals thing to see if your proof is real. I can't right now, but thank you for copying and pasting the pertinent text. I'll follow up here when I know something. Two for 2 though does seem odd that we couldn't just follow the paragraph below. I suppose those numbers are ripe for re-changing at this point too. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:B8DC:E9BC:F4D:84A6 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The MOS combines a clear rule for isolated numbers with a more ambiguous guideline for numbers in groups: there's room for debate on the meanings of "comparable" and "near one another", and which of the two choices, "all spelled out" or "all in figures" to go for. But in the case of "The two English ancient universities share many common features and are jointly referred to as Oxbridge" there's no doubt at all that words win. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Suffered and Neglected

Discussion has descended into trolling and socking. We should neglect nor suffer neither. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Jonathan A Jones Ican't really see cause, root or otherwise, to choose 'neglected' here because it rings of the phrase 'ignored' and at a school like Oxford, even in dire times, that doesn't seem like it would make sense; Oxford ignored their mandate to teach effectively? No way! 'Suffered' makes more sense in context to the events preceding the interest in this query. There was a cause, and an effect, the 'suffering'. 'Neglected' would demean by choice rather than by consequence. Have you thought about that? It's kind of a chicken and egg question. One without the other certainly could make sense if viewed separately but as causes of action, or in this area, detriment, one might consider the causality as being the main point. One 'suffered' is very different than one was 'neglected'. Tell me how you are feeling about it all? Do you think because the 'neglect' ended then the tone of futured improvement is more in-line with what the article should stipulate, or no? 209.214.137.154 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC) IP editor, the source says neglected and yes, you could say that "Oxford ignored their mandate to teach effectively" in the 18th century. I searched for oxford+teaching+neglected+eighteenth+century and found this page by Lawrence Stone in Google books. Hopefully you can read it where you are. TSventon (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Creating discord where there actually is none I see. Well, I found the 'neglected' in the sourcing material. I needed to know. Some of us care enough to bring it to Talk at least. Priceless information when discussed appropriately. Nothing worth dying over within the community. I could name a ton of other reasons to continue the argument if needed; a million even. I'll never get there. I have less than a formal education. But at least I know, and like I said, that's absolutely priceless. Thanks for clearing it up between 'suffered' and 'neglected'. Jonathan felt 'neglected' was correct as well, so I got that answer for him with your input. Keeping no name for now on the IP moniker. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC) I'm afraid that it's painfully clear that you know little about the long history of universities, and seem to be assuming that they are very similar to their modern US counterparts. It really is much more complicated than that. Yes, it should be "neglected", and yes the implication of "ignored" is perfectly apposite. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Actuafying it...I was just thinking causation is key and was hoping to explore that concept. Clearly, I was wrong based on sourced material but it doesn't mean the source is actually grammatically correct just that it is the source that the article, which may be incorrect, is based on. There are preceding events that are described here and thus 'suffered', in context, seems rational. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC) There are plenty of sources that would support that teaching was neglected rather than simply suffered. It's a pretty well established historical fact. Robminchin (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Actively just supporting that neglected is something done by choice and suffering is something that's caused, even if by choice, but, following a series of discreet events, usually. It is to say we are saying that the sources are saying and that others have agreed that Oxford chose or chooses not to teach well and thus was or is neglecting its own educational mandate. I would just say that that is unfortunate because there are clearly discreet events preceding the choice to not teach good. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Ican understand both sides here. If Oxford literally chose to not educate their students properly then by choice they neglected, which is what in turn would also have led to suffering. If it was not by choice, but rather by some unforeseen set of events, then the consequence would have been more-so suffering and less-so neglect; and based on the literal understanding sourced here the suffering must have also been occurring which is what led to the choice to neglect; and specifically neglect education-teaching or fail to adhere to their medieval method, mentioned in the article, which would guarantee of course more suffering from the neglecting to adhere to their own particular method. I vote neglect in this case; so it does seem outnumbered in the vote. Theoretically, however, there is clearly suffering involved in the underpinning of meaning in the word-choice for this article related to the factual inclusions. So, suffering is only out of place because of the sourcing. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:38E5:1D0F:671E:DDE (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Categorically, there could be no neglect without suffering. While they are not one and the same, the words mimic in outcome. There is more action needed to fulfill neglect, and one can suffer without neglect. But one cannot neglect without inducing suffering. That is well known. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Classically, it may be that the sourcing is what's been neglected here. Word-choice in sourcing can sour the pot in articles if you know what I mean. It does not seem incumbent upon WikiPeeps to adjust for poor word-choice in sourced material. Who then is neglecting and causing the ultimate suffering? Sources? Or WikiPeeps for not holding sourcing to account? Suffered in the case in question does grammatically and scholastically make more sense English-wise as the outcome follows a series of discreet and dramatic events. But democracy is real (in some places) so we vote that neglected works its magic here and anyone with an English degree ends up suffering. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:AD27:C699:A0BD:4A91 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Critically speaking, sourcing, first hand sourcing - that's the real magic. We can quibble about word-choice for days or even decades until we're reborn even, but our culture relies on first-hand sourcing to know who we are and where we came from. I don't say that to disparage your comment. I find your comments quite moving, if not beautiful in a natural understanding of English grammar and scholastics. To argue though, that we should spot-correct sourcing on our own could lead to utter chaos in the realm of classic knowledge and understanding in literal translations. Perhaps, new standards in editing should be allowed, where source material is changed minutely so that as it arrives for the purview of public eyes we can call it perfect in form, shape, and meaning. Suffered and neglected are listed as synonyms so naturally it is uncommon that a discussion would erupt in determining if suffered or neglected should be chosen for description in article which justifies both in their place except for the source. Suffering is caused by neglect and neglecting is by the known to be a choice of habit rather than a consequence of happenings. Good stuff! Philosophical grammar slams are intriguing and I hope Wiki proposes more through it's myriad of Talk channels. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Ican look around and see what I can see about disagreeing with word-choice from sourcing. Neglected is elective, no doubt, but it honestly sounds like this case is a consequence of sorts and thus the teaching suffered vs. neglected. Sources are not necessarily quoted exactly in these articles; certainly the academic articles take a lot of liberties based on the editing crowd that's insisted on dominating the narrative - leaving proper grammar and scholastic indeed neglected and thus all Wiki suffers. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:35B4:2C4C:70BA:B1C9 (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Actively found one thing: Meaning Suffering Refers to experiencing pain, distress, or hardship. It's a state or condition someone or something endures. → It is passive—something happens to the subject. Example: The child was suffering from a high fever. Neglecting Means failing to care for or give proper attention to someone or something. It is an action (or inaction) that implies responsibility. → It is active—the subject fails to act. Example: She was neglecting her plants, and they started to wilt. It does support that the sourcing may include a poor word-choice since the article describes a hardship based on discreet events not some overarching conscious decision to let Oxford's flower 'wilt' - forgive the pun. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Scholastically speaking, sourcing is not an exact science, and any particular author could be flawed. So the Oxford University article is left scarred and flawed due to small things like this where sourcing disrupted the actual underpinning of the historical event which is recounted in this area. It's concerning but not surprising. You've seen the crowd in here. They only care that their edit makes it and not that it actually makes sense. Makes a lot of sense. So we eat the neglect here knowing full well it is better served as suffering. Nobody wins not even the article Nazis because they don't learn good either and that leads to catastrophic stupidity - and thus more suffering. I haven't found anything on it myself, but I am still looking. I'll let you know if I can bring more understanding to this neglected and suffered Talk discord. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:35B4:2C4C:70BA:B1C9 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Classically, the sourcing was neglected and so the article suffers. Ha! 73.158.120.223 (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Thanking you for the levity. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:81B5:E105:1FB7:A5B9 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Ican see some other topics on the matter of proper sourcing or faulty or spotty source material in word-choice and such. Seasoned editors are of course supposed to review sourced material including their grammatical and scholastic inclusions. You can see by the lot-of-them you, I, and others encounter, the term 'seasoned editors' may be more artful than exacting. IP editors like ourselves are left to arrange votes on the matter tipping capacity of everyday IPs in the favor of a favored change where these 'seasoned editors' are counted on a 5/3 basis; 5 of them count for every 3 IP editors; that's what they say anyways "Seasoned editors count more as real people than IP editors". I haven't found a forum of competence yet for this particular styled intrigue of neglecting and suffering; the difference in source and sayings articulated in the article as one without corrective opportunity due in part to the seasoned editors 5/3 principle in voting matters. Never is going against every rational semblance of debate worth dying or losing your mind over. There should though be a forum for this 'neglect or suffer' inquiry. I'll keep looking and bring back to you news which is sure to assuage both our minds of the efforted philosophy and opportune pedagogy. Thank you JackDawson for having our backs and bringing this Talk topic back so we can find reasonable conclusion to this sourcing vs. scholastic and grammatical imperative. I still think suffering makes more sense in this article following the discreet events outlined in the source material and the article itself. Someday, maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, IPs will have equal rights among seasoned editors seeking the absolvence of truth. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC) CanI show you something I found that could help IP editors in their quest to make a difference among the elite? [sic] is a Latin word meaning "so" or "thus". This [sic] is something IP editors can use if they believe a word is wrong or to justify its inclusion based on an incorrect grammar or scholastic item in the sourcing. So, the case of suffering versus neglecting we could ask an elite editor, since this and a lot of articles are not protected from 'new think', to place a [sic] next to the word neglected indicating it may be poor word-choice from the source itself. What do you think? JackDawson00 (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Scholastically intriguing JackDawson! Are you unable to try and place the [sic] yourself? You seem elite. It does seem like a solution to pull through to a lot of articles with odd sourcing mistakes like neglect versus suffering. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Fanatic as I am, alas I am not elite and don't have access to edit this article or any protected article. I doubt my status will change. I enjoy working with IP editors in 'new think' exercises. Better to learn than to try and be a Nazi and demand articles be a certain way or history not inclusive of notations like this [sic]. I note though that we may have to underpin the [sic] here in noting somehow that 'suffering' is correct. So, an elite editor would write 'suffered [sic]' and not 'neglected [sic]'. JackDawson00 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC) A[sic] it is then. Hopefully an elite will come along and help us poor IPs and you out. Good luck on your elite journey. I am still searching for information on accurate sourcing. I see sourcing is supposed to be exacting but that really limits learning and thus literally creates undue suffering which is exactly the bottom we're looking for in this case. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Contemplating being elite churns my stomach to be honest. You see these guys? They are all article Nazis. Never in a million years would I want to be mentioned in the same group as a lot of these so called 'elites'. Either way, they win and we're the losers because we lack the ability to bring 'new think' into the spectrum of knowledge gain and growth. Doomed to suffer, I assume. I have some Talks going with a few elites that haven't Nazi-ed too hard with me. I'll see if I can turn them randomly towards this article and jump in to discuss [sic] or [sigma] or some notation that properly addresses the posit of consequential suffering rather than a choiced neglect. JackDawson00 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Capturing this opportunity could be a big one. I'm still looking at the sourcing requisites. The other IP may come back later and add to the insights as well. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Unless they're blocked sock puppets. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Stopchasing IP 'new think'! If you don't have a sincere reason to be here go to bed or something. Sheesh. You should be blocked for chasing IPs around just tyring to make something of themselves. JackDawson00 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I think you'll soon be blocked as a sock puppet. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Ican't really understand what you mean, but whatever. This is clearly an elitist organization and the whole thing should be taken down and not relied upon for anything. Would hate to see Wikipedia end up poor, penniless, and bankrupt, but if it's just going to be elites picking on newbies then it's kind of a worthless platform for anything meaningful, if you ask me. Give me a chance to learn, aye? I have like 10 edits to my name and most of them have stuck. JackDawson00 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC) This is my new favorite sockpuppetry instance. I've never seen one have such a long conversation with themselves. It's honestly hilarious at this point. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Ican see a lot of people in the conversation so clearly not a conversation with oneself unless I'm actually controlling all of you as well. That would be nifty. It's a genuine discord on sourcing. JackDawson00 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC) So long, Jack. We'll be sure to keep any eye out for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Guess it depends on what you mean by "stuck". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, the original IP here, 209.214.137.154, who has been editing since 11 February, has just been blocked for a week for block evasion. SPI still ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• The SPI has now been closed and the IP editor has now been blocked for the time being. TSventon (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)