| Revision as of 09:14, 7 August 2009 editJoinTheMadVender (talk | contribs)169 editsm →Hank Green: (Forgot to log in. Replaced signature)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:35, 3 January 2025 edit undoCactusisme (talk | contribs)91 edits →Hello!!!: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkpage}} | |||
| {{/archivelist}} | {{/archivelist}} | ||
| {{administrator}} | |||
| {|align="centre" | |||
| |{{editabuselinks}} | |||
| |} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == |
== You missed == | ||
| … the master of {{noping|Abu4real1995}}: {{noping|Joseph4real1995}}. Best, ] 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Are you an admin? Please read the article Battle of Bassorah before editing out my speedy deletion edit. I don't believe it's fair for you to do that until you have read the article in question. It perfectly meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I am going to add that to it again. If you would like to delete it again, do so, but only after reading the article, the references, and posting your reasons. Thank You.--] (]) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ⚫ | : No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. ] (]) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ==IP vandal edits== | |||
| ::Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, ] 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I reverted some vandalism from ] and was going to put a warning on their talk page. Then I noticed that you had blocked the IP for a year, expiring 9 June 2009, and that shortly after the vandalism resumed. I think it would look a little silly for me to add two more diffs ( and ) because they are again at "last warning". If you think I should just add another warning, please reply here, otherwise you might like to take it further. Thanks. ] (]) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::: I have re-blocked them. ] (]) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks ... see you in thirteen months! ] (]) 10:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Assistance == | |||
| ==Unlock ] for creation== | |||
| I went to create the article for Kidz Bop 16 as it is now in retail stores and available nationwide but it looks like someone went to keep creating it prematurely and someone had to block it. You were one of the admins that deleted it. Can you unblock it so I can create the article? The previous 15 Kidz Bop albums have articles so I figured 16 should too. ] (]) 09:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| **Thanks :) ] (]) 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding ] achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me ] ]. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." ] (]) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proactive request == | |||
| :@] As I had reply to ] at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have ] and ] to start 2025. On '']'', ] that removed "{{tq|Material that fails verification be removed}}" per ] with "{{tq|WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH}}" in the edit summary however so lovely we have ] that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "{{tq|WP:BITE WP:FAITH}}"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for ''Lovely Runner'' either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On ], believed to be related to ] which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to ] reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the ]. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per ] and didn't requires ]. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the ] violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> 🎉🎆 ] 🎆🎉 <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{la|Sathya Sai Baba}} | |||
| This article could use the assistance of one or more mediators experienced with particularly controversial topic areas, as well as the attention of one or more uninvolved administrators. There is a typical pattern of long talk page posts, sprawling policy disputes that often take on an overall "wikilawyerish" tone, stagnant progress, and little administrative oversight. There were two arbitration cases centered around this article/topic: ] and ]. Any assistance you can provide in finding editors to fill the mediator and administrator roles for the Sathya Sai Baba topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --] (]) 12:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::: I agree with Aoidh's . ] (]) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Transcendental Meditation article is in Chaos == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi Phil, We are happy to have you mediating the article. But do you think this mediation will start soon? Huge sections of the article are being added and deleted by multiple editors daily. Today one editor took a third of the article and put it in a spin off article without consensus. There is clear edit warring. This article needs attention and fast. Thanking you in advance. --] (]) 21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, PhilKnight, | |||
| I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Hank Green == | |||
| :I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits. == | |||
| Hi! I came across your name because you redirected the ] article (as requested) a couple of months ago. I've been working on the Hank Green article for over a year now. After three deletion reviews]]] and a lot of vandalism along the way, the article is still struggling with notability issues. I was wondering if you could maybe give me a bit of advice.<br> | |||
| My current draft of the article in my sandbox is ].<br> | |||
| Mr. Green's first album has been ranked on a ] chart. (#22 on the chart for top revenue generating albums online). Am I correct in assuming that this would suffice for his notability as per ] ''"Has had a charted album on any national music chart"''? This ranking is of course not the only claim to notability but it is probably the most solid one (as per Misplaced Pages's guidelines, anyway). Other sources include ] (radio interview), Fox News Mobile (interview on website), ] (television interview), ] (news report), etc.<br> | |||
| I would like to get the article somewhat approved before getting it up again, rather than getting it taken down once more after a deletion review. But Misplaced Pages is a bit of a confusing place to me: | |||
| :-Someone suggested going to Deletion Review for overturning the last one. But I do not really disagree with the last DR (The Billboard ranking was not included yet) and the article currently redirects to Hank's brother John's page. So it seems inappropriate going to the Deletion Review.<br> | |||
| :-Another suggestion was posting at ]. That was actually done a few weeks ago by another editor working on Hank Green, but it appears there was hardly any response.<br> | |||
| :-] also seems to be meant for similar purposes. | |||
| Is there a definite way of getting approval before posting an article?<br> | |||
| I would really appreciate it if you could read my draft and maybe point out any obvious shortcomings.<br> | |||
| Any advice on how to further proceed would also be very much appreciated.<br> | |||
| Thanks! ] (]) 00:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi JoinTheMadVender, I've looked at the article, and it seems ok. I think you should make a request at deletion review to allow article recreation. ] (]) 09:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
: You should use the talk page - ] - to establish ], and not ]. ] (]) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello!!! == | |||
| I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at ]. ] (]) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright, thanks!! ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about the bot? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" ] (]) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::@] Archiving bot ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::::: I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. ] (]) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Anyone you know who uses it? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Looking at ] {{u|Rosguill}} uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. ] (]) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::ok ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:35, 3 January 2025
 Archives |
|---|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
|
| edit |
You missed
… the master of Abu4real1995: Joseph4real1995. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have re-blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Assistance
"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding Lovely Runner achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me Ultraviolet Rollback. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." Puchicatos (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight As I had reply to Aoidh at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS to start 2025. On Lovely Runner, my edit that removed "
Material that fails verification be removed
" per WP:VERIFY with "WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH
" in the edit summary however so lovely we have this edit by our dear editor that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "WP:BITE WP:FAITH
"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for Lovely Runner either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On List of awards and nominations received by Byeon Woo-seok, believed to be related to this discussion which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to this edit reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the documentation. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per WP:BOLD and didn't requires WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the WP:3RR violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Aoidh's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive
Hello, PhilKnight,
I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. Liz 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! Liz 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits.
Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsLi7HgSuhI Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should use the talk page - Talk:Nürburgring - to establish consensus, and not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello!!!
I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? Cactus🌵 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. PhilKnight (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks!! Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about the bot? Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Rosguill uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)