User talk:Me Da Wikipedian

Managing Edit Warring Situation

And now you are trying to manage a possible edit-warring situation when you have only been editing for two weeks? I think you should spend less time trying to do administrative tasks and reverting other editors and just do some article improvements so you can better understand Wikipedia policies and guidlines. You have to earn respect from your fellow editors through demonstrating competency, it's not just given to you when you registered an account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving To Inappropriate Titles

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to 300 (number). This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop per WP:BOLD. Please explain your reasoning. Mine is that the article is basically entire about the range of numbers not just 300. What is yours?@CambridgeBayWeather Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Consistency and long term stable title. All the others are in the format "number (number)" and have been that way for some time. If you think your title is better then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay done....@CambridgeBayWeather Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Vijay

Pardon me, but the removal was explained when the edit war started.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, sorry. @Skywatcher68 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries. You're relatively new and presumably learning as you go; I've been here almost 18 years and still defer to more experienced editors regarding certain subjects. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

jaymaster05 edit

I have added content on the Jack Abbott (The Young and the Restless) article, but it has been removed due to not being provided a source. How do I provide a source I order to keep my added content on this page? Jaymaster05 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability would be good places to start. How this is helpful@Jaymaster05 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect reversion and warning

Hi. This was not an unexplained content removal. The IP editor was removing an advertising link, and explained that in their edit summary. Please check these a little more carefully before reverting or warning other editors. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It was unexplained content removal, as they removed "Its tower has collapsed. As of 2018, the mansion is offered for sale.". However you are correct about the reference, I thought I removed that but apparently not@Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The tower collapse component is unsourced and a legitimate target for removal. Alternatively it could have been retained but tagged as unsourced. The rest was an advert for a local realtor which was appropriately removed as linkspam. The issue is not the lack of sourcing for the tower collapse, it is that you warned another editor for "unexplained content removal" of the realtor ad when they did in fact explain the content removal in their edit summary. The problem with this kind of error is that incorrect warnings discourage editors from wanting to contribute. The Wikipedia rules for editing are complex enough as is; imagine how discouraging it must be to follow the rules and get reverted and warned anyway.

As I mentioned above there are plenty of legitimate vandal reversions and warnings in your edit history, which is great. FWIW your strike rate for good edits is also significantly improved, with fewer questionable edits. But the error rate is still too high, and it seems to be because you are working too fast and not taking time to check what you revert and why you revert it. In what I hope come across as constructive advice, I'd ask you again to please slow down and check and re-check before reverting and warning your Wikipedia colleagues. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well no in their edit summary they said that they removed a real estate listing (the spam link) nothing said about the sentence at all. So maybe it was justified to remove the sentence too, but definetly still unexplained why they did that @Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content at Adam Newman

Hi. I noticed you removed storyline content at this article. I have WP:BOLD reverted it. While sources are important, this article is about a fictional character, and many Wikipedia articles about characters, films and such don't cite sources for everything related to the storyline/plot. I think it would be better to leave it as there is substantial content there. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really know a lot about this. But don't need some way of knowing where this info came from/if it's true@Cleo Cooper Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe from the other sources within the article, I guess. But I don't think it's worth removal it all. If we take a look at articles about other films sections like plot/storyline aren't sourced, as it's assumed that it comes directly from the work (primary). Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll do it

I'll go report the user who keeps changing it to "op die" Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Already did @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ha! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome. Thanks for your help as well @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw do you use Twinkle? You're just as fast as me at reverting vandal Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Not saying that I'm better Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Also at some point I started just patrolling their contribs @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We're really similar. I just started reverting and monitoring Recent Changes through a filter 4 days ago. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing it for a few weeks but still. What filter, just curious. I use [1] @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This: [2] It doesn't really count as "Monitoring Recent Changes", but it's still pretty good. Gets most of the vandalisms. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

btw, what if we were wrong about reverting those edits? If you read the whole sentence, the IP user might be making a useful edit (however they did not say what they were doing). Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Very Likely Have Problems" and "Very Likely Bad Faith" are subsets of "Likely Have Problems" and "Likely Bad Faith", so there is no point in having those. In addition, a lot of those edit will have already be reverted, so maybe use that as well so it disappears once reverted. I also have it so that Extended Confirmed edits don't show up as those are very unlikely to be vandalism. I like your idea of also adding the faith prediction though. Also realizes that my "Registered" filter defeats the point of not having EC editors edit show up so removed that. So maybe something like [3] would be good@Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: If you are neither Myrealanmm, Me Da Wikipedian, or someone that was involved with this, do not change the article from "op die" to "of the". It was a mistake that Me Da Wikipedian and I made, thinking "op die" was vandalism. "op die" translates to "of the". Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked April 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. May I ask how I was edit warring @ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Me Da Wikipedian, sure. You have joined the following edit war with two reverts that added factually incorrect material to the article:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Given the history of warnings above for similarly problematic patrolling quality, I believe that a 24-hour block was the simplest and mildest way to make this stop.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops! That was totally my mistake (well actually only [9] [10] were even me but...)! I recognize that and I am sorry, and will try to improve. In this particular case it seemed like vandalism, considering that a user replacing something with "op die" is usually not a good edit, and I didn't look at the content too much considering that they had already been reverted and warned repeatedly by another user. I think that in general, after that first 5 issues at the very beginning, most of my problems have been not fully looking at the context (ex.didn't see a ref was a spam link and saw no edit summary so reverted, saw someone adding "op die" and didn't see it was in another language, etc.) I will work on that in the future.

I think that my quality has been improving to nearly okay, am I incorrect. @Euryalus mentioned that I should aim for at least 98-99% accuracy. Removing my first 13 reverts, which I had a terrible 61-62% accuracy on, I have had accuracy near 97-98%. Am correct that I am improving and nearly there?

P.S. I wasn't really edit warring. From reasoning WP:Edit warring, reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring. Considering that I, and another user as well, thought that we were reverting vandalism, I don't really think we were edit warring, considering that edit warring is, as far as I can tell, only edit warring if deliberate. I'm guessing I'm missing something though, please tell me what.

Thank you and sorry for (yet again) wasting people's time. @ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Am not sure I said anything about percentages of accuracy, perhaps this was someone else? Either way ToBeFree has good advice below. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the term "edit warring", I'd be fine with calling it "unintentional disruptive editing", perhaps "persistent unintentional disruptive editing". Please note that WP:3RRNO's exception number 4 is usually about more obvious cases of vandalism, though, even if we assumed that it was vandalism. Whatever it was, I hope that preventing it for 24 hours isn't entirely unreasonable.

Your accuracy may very well have improved and that's good! I didn't check all recent contributions to see if there's more of this or if it was just 1% of them. But the warnings above are from April 2024, that's the current month. For the block decision, the number of good contributions wasn't a factor. The absolute amount of disruption, not the relative percentage of it, led to the decision. This doesn't mean that the relative percentage is irrelevant; of course it is relevant in general. If you edit very infrequently and just make one bad edit per year with none good in between, that would also lead to a block after a few of these contributions. In that case, the block would even have to be indefinite because no short duration block would prevent it from continuing.

I am unsure which advice I could/should provide at this point; I think the 24-hour pause might really have been the best way to cause whichever change is needed. I don't intend to monitor your contributions afterwards or whatever else; I just stumbled upon them at WP:AIV, took quick action to stop disruption and moved on. If the 24-hour block is agreeable and you're fine with just letting it expire and moving on afterwards too, then I think that's the best approach.

It's all good. My personal time wasn't wasted; I volunteer to look at such situations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I meant that me (repeatedly) reverting good edits, after which somebody must re-revert them, tell me and explain it to me, and remove the warnings, is probably annoying to do. The block had already expired by the time you replied so...advice already taken there.

"The absolute amount of disruption, not the relative percentage of it, led to the decision." - Would that mean, theoretically, if I revert 1000 bad edits in a week, but also 10 good edits, that you would concievably block me. Alternatively, if I revert 10 edits in a week, and 1 is actually good, is that better?@ToBeFree

To Euryalus, that's a good point, I feel like I remember you saying that if I make mistakes more than once per 50-100 reverts or once per hour, then thats a problem and I need to slow down@Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well less error is always better, but everyone makes a mistake once in a while. :) Anyway, I see the block has expired so welcome back. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Did you in fact say that, did someone else say that, or am I completely making things up here. @Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't say it. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Me Da Wikipedian, I understand the desire for exact numbers or criteria, but they don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Your additon of stub on Bapu Zimidar

Hello Me Da Wikipedian,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is easy to do via the StubSorter tool, and is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, but wow! Will do in the future. @Turtletennisfogwheat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism vs Antisemitism

Hi there. It is now more accepted to use Antisemitism instead of the outdated 'Anti-semitism'. The latter was a term created as a pseudo-scientific explanation for the hatred of Jews, often associated with the Nazi ideology of racial classification (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/spelling-antisemitism / https://www.adl.org/spelling-antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism). Thanks 81.108.69.245 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, I was mostly just saying that we should be consistent with other "anti-(insert thing here)" stuff, whichever way we chose to do it Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObsessedWithStarship II

You are being very disruptive, even if that's not your intention. You cannot move cases at SPI. Only SPI clerks and CheckUsers may do so. Even patrolling admins, like me, cannot move cases. I've reverted your move. Also, stop writing in the section of SPI reports that is reserved for clerks, CUs, and patrolling admins. I keep moving your comments, and you persist anyway. Thanks for changing the refs to diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry I didn't know.

I moved the case because I realized that I had mixed up sockpuppet/sockmaster. Who can I ask to move it then?

Sorry about writing in that section, didn't realize I couldn't write in it if replying to you.

@Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In this instance, it would be better to wait before moving it, depending on the CU results.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. Assuming that the sockmaster considering it was created first@Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 86.152.206.111 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) You deleted my post on the presidential badge which I added as a stupid joke. I don’t even know why you were on there but it’s pretty cool you are such a great mod. Check out schaffrillas productions as he is pretty funny and if you watch the sans and papyrus free birds video you will get it. Hope you have a great life and thanks for helping Wikipedia.

You're welcome, but please use the sandbox to make jokes/tests. Also trouting is for if I make a mistake, which as far as I know I did not. Thank you, have a nice day Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Putt-Putt Joins the Parade

I literally stated the reason: unsourced info. We can't find a source to cover this information. Therefore, it cannot be on the page. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:713C:E81C:D6EE:4041 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, didn't see that. Thank you! Undid my edit! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I forgive you. 🤗 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:713C:E81C:D6EE:4041 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Kolenda

Page edits Raulton4878 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering why my edits are not neutral and are getting reverted. Some things written on Daniel’s page aren't relevant or true. Raulton4878 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You are removing sourced information that you disagree with. Per WP:NPOV, we need to represent all major sides. Whether you believe them correct is, sorry to say, irrelevant. Reliable sources disagree, and this needs to represented@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

So basically your saying there isn't much I can do to correct this information? Raulton4878 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You can add sourced information to the contrary, if you can find reliable sources. But no, you can't just remove it because you don't like it@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Where it say his spouse is, that isn't technically correct if you refer to the source information then is it? Raulton4878 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What did that mean?@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well the source say he had a divorce and then it say his spouse is the person who he is divorce from, so technically not his spouse. So can you remove spouse info but leave the bit in the bio? Raulton4878 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, so add a passage, sourced, saying he was divorced. And use the source correctly and you should be fine@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: I think your revision on the page Flight of the Behemoth wasn't quite right. The name seems insane, but the IP isn't wrong, that is actually the full name of the song. I know, its nuts. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

FWTBT can't possibly stand for that. Not how acronym's work (I think). Don't really know though. Pinging @Joyous! since they reverted too for a 3rd opinion@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Look it up. FWTPT stands for For Whom The Bell Tolls, the full title is:

F.W.T.B.T (I Dream of Lars Ulrich Being Thrown Through the Bus Window Instead of My Mystikal Master Kliff Burton) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem right, if Joyous! agrees, let's revert (they were original reverter and are admin so...)@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good :)

I don't blame you a bit, it seems like it couldn't possible be right. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. Sorry for the error. Feel free to revert. Admin or no, I goof up sometimes. I would definitely include a cite, though, because the title is so weird. Joyous! Noise! 15:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I'll cite it and take care of it. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this whole talk page is filled with my mistakes:)@Joyous!@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joyous!@Me Da Wikipedian

Done, mind taking a look? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing! Joyous! Noise! 15:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you did something with the cite web to mess it up. Will fix! Also, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page.@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe its the template. Will not ping on pages also! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, ping on other places, just I already get a message when someone posts on my talk page. Posted on your page, you'll see that even without a ping, you get notified@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I get that, just phrased it wrong. Also, I'll fix the cite. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ping

You do nhot have to keep pining me, the page is on my wHATCH LIST. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, didn't know@Slatersteven (and sorry if this is also on your watchlist) Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking at Rocket Lab

Regarding this revert. Please look carefully at what you have done, and contrast that with your edit summary. For example, in the single paragraph beginning The company was founded in New Zealand in 2006 you have added two links to Rocket Lab Electron, and in the paragraph beginning Two attempts have been made to recover you added another. This makes three links in that section alone. Now consider the rest of the article - similar problems exist. I should point out that having one link per section is not a requirement but a maximum, the actual gudeline reads Link a term at most once per major section, and the article has four major sections. I should not be finding more than four links to Rocket Lab Electron in the entire article (and this includes links through redirects such as Electron (rocket)), yet there are presently something of the order of eighteen.

These are the pages for which there are four or more links in that article:

• Curie (rocket engine): 4
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport: 5
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Launch Pad 0: 5
• Peter Beck: 4
• Rocket Lab Electron: 16
• Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1: 4
• Rocket Lab Neutron: 7
• Rocket Lab Photon: 5

This list ignores redirects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

So, first off, the article has 15 sections, not 4. Given how important electron is, it's not unreaosnable to hit the maxium a lot. There were 2 extra links to electron in the lead, 1 extra link to MARS Pad 0, I've removed them. Didn't see anything overlinking with the MARS link, the LC-1 link, the Neutron link, Photon link, Beck link, and curie link. If you have an issue with them, please explain. @Redrose64 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the guideline states Link a term at most once per major section, please note the word "major" - a major section is one with a level 2 heading, and the article has three of these: History, Hardware and Facilities, plus the lead making four. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Person the note, "a lower-level subsection is major, especially when a preceeding subsection is especially long, when an article's structure puts most content under level-3 headings with level-2 ones primarily used for thematic grouping". These is no content under a level 2 heading not under a level 3. So then there is my number@Redrose64 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello,

on my talkpage I have got the notice that you have kindly started a review of an article that I have added to the Good Article nomination list. But on the list I see a warning that you don't have created a review page as it is requested for GA. Would you please take a look on it, may it be an error? Thanks Dioskorides (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This was a mistake and I later got it deleted. hope that clear it up@Dioskorides Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:ToadetteEdit

Please be patient. They have just been through a stressful RfA, and even if not, they volunteer their time here. It isn't their obligation to attend to you right away. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that, never said they did. All I did was say I did it and sorry for not seeing it earlier@Asparagusus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's okay. I just wanted to let you know. Happy editing! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 68.1.207.26 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why you trouted me. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

hrdr

AFD Voting

Slow it down.... You !voted in over 50 AFD in roughly an hour's time. All of them already seem to have clear consensus, but there doesn't seem to be any possibility you actually did an evaluation of each topic. It feels a tad gamey. I can say unequivocally that you did not actually evaluate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlus USA in the 1 minute gap before !voting there and the AFD you had just !voted in before. That article has over 70 references and is a complicated case. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but looking through just a few of them quickly I could see that they were realible. All 70 don't need to reliable to prevent deletion, just enough to demonstrate notability@Ferret Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, please let me know three sources from Atlus USA that show in-depth WP:SIGCOV of Atlus USA, and are not primary or interviews. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/09/17/perfecting-persona-how-atlus-usa-bloomed.aspx

https://web.archive.org/web/20150402172351/http://www.destructoid.com/anime-expo-08-atlus-shin-megami-tensei-panel-94038.phtml

https://web.archive.org/web/20031209003138/http://www.atlus.co.jp/about/kaisha_enkaku.html

How are those@Ferret Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Destructoid is a bit half coverage, half interview. In the end this is a panel about various games, not the company. Similarly, Atlus.co.jp is clearly a primary source... about the Japanese company, not it's USA branch. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but Destructoid definetly has part that satify your criteria. It's about games by the company. The atlus.co.jp is fair, if you want ill find another one Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those sources contribute to WP:GNG, so yes, I'd like you to find two more. Destructoid is not about the company and doesn't even mention it beyond saying Atlus did a panel. All calls at that AFD for the Keep votes to provide three clearly contributing sources have gone unanswered. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why Destructoid doesn't meet those guidelines. Also, whats wrong with interviews. Remove that restriction and theres like 10 or more Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Because that's long standing guideline at WP:GNG. Interviews are not independent from the subject, and GNG requires independent coverage. Even then, that interview is not about the company. It's one of their designers talking about various games. Please, participation in AfD requires an understanding of the notability guidelines, including understanding what a WP:Primary source is and what WP:Independent means. I asked for three sources that were not interviews or primary, and you provided an interview and primary source. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary source was an accident, since reliaze that was their japanese version. How's https://press.plaion.com/en/Atlus and https://www.mobygames.com/company/1971/atlus-usa-inc/ Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Plaion is literally a database of press releases from the company. Could you explain how you believe this constitutes significant in-depth coverage, even if we ignore the non-independence? MobyGames is an unreliable user-generated website. Even then, ignoring that, it's just a database entry. There is no coverage or discussion of the company. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is covering what the company does, which includes making press releases. And MobyGames I get. Will find a third in a bit Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Plaion's entry is written by the company. This is not coverage, nor independent. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point, changing my vote Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me???

Hi Me Da Wikipedian,

Why did you copy material exactly from my user page to yours? Why? That's not very nice.

This includes my userboxes (which I immediately recognized from the order of them), my topicons (almost in the same order as mine), my short description (OK, I get it. I lot of people are "A Wikipedian", The citation-needed template (which I purposely added a joke and it is the exact same in your user page). Why?

I mean, OK, there's no "copyright" issues, it's all just templates from this wiki. But anyways, it's not that nice to do so. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the "A Button to My Talk Page" actually goes to my talk page, so there's more proof... Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, @Me Da Wikipedian, don't be a NOTHERE. Thanks. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with me liking some of your userboxes, so I added them. ooops about the bugs though Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the talk page button, I am a wikipedian too, and I removed the citations needed. Thats not WP:NOTHERE though. please read that page@Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you:

- Edit Wikipedia... instead of doing what they need to be doing.

- Hate sockpuppets.

- This user contributes using Google Chrome.

- This user enjoys an ad-free internet thanks to uBlock Origin.

??? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes.@Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 20:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"Unexplained"

The edits I made from my IP address were not "unexplained". I know we are all suspicious of IP edits, but there's a long-standing issue of Toastmasters conflicted editors adding spammy links to their own PR. 9https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatrice_Shilling&diff=1221407286&oldid=1221134972 this] is blatant spam. They genuinely seem to think that everything that organisation does is notable. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I see several other cases of pushing "Unexplained removal" as reversion and warning on edits that clearly had a stated reason. What are you doing here, Me Da Wikipedian? Slow it down. Improper patrolling is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Enoooough, really. Me Da Wikipedian, when the month is over or in case you're unblocked with hopefully an agreement to stay far away from administrative areas for a while, please find something else to do than reviewing others' contributions and making things worse in the process. I came here because of your latest edit, Special:Diff/1222431472, breaking multiple discussions and leaving me reading confusedly for a few minutes by removing comments within (!) threads others had replied to. And then all the warnings here on this page. Users complaining about bad reverts. The edit warring that led to the previous block. The declined protection request discussion at RfPP. The very recent weird /56 range suggestion where /128's and /56's contribution lists are identical. The bad revert mentioned above. Enough of this. Please. The block is mainly limited to a month to prevent endless arguments and to allow administrators to simply decline it saying that you can also simply wait a month. Please find ways to contribute that do not eat more time than they donate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My most sincere apologizes. The first edit was trying to remove personal attacks, but in retrospect I get that it was disruptive. I have only had 2 issues out of hundreds of reverts since my last block. The range suggestion was a mistake, and apoligzes for the revert. May I please be unblocked, under the condition that I stay away from administrative areas for a time of your choosing. I really do not intend to be disruptive. I am so sorry@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not questioning your good intentions, but I personally won't unblock, and the way to request someone else to do is described in the block message. You should have a clear idea about what you'd like to do in case you're unblocked, and you should describe that in such a request. Specific examples for helpful contributions currently prevented by the block would be beneficial. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

CVUA

I am sorry but I'll have to halt your training course for the duration of your block. I will evaluate in a later date but, during your block, please reread all the policies and guidelines in the field of vandalism, as well as warning users. I recommend that you add the {{unblock}} template, but describing the issues that led to your block and to convince admins that you won't edit disruptively again. Toadette^Edit! 05:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't read more on your talk page, but after I reviewed your recent contributions and saw a revert of accurately removed content, I am a little worried about your improper reverts. Yes, I've seen you reverting valid edits with accurate reasons, but the issues above led to your second block. You should really know what are you reverting, and you should really calm down, because haste can lead to many problems. If you were to apply for rollback right now, then your application will certainly be declined. I urge you to reread all of the policies and guidelines that were already given to you and take it to heart. Watch others' reverts and learn from them. See their reports at AIV and RFPP and also learn from them. I did the same back in my first months here on Wikipedia, watch and then reverting edits one by one, learning from my vandal fighting skills. I also suggest refraining from engaging with those who cast threats or personal attacks until at least a month or two. Toadette^Edit! 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Minor little issue called I'm blocked for a month though, so I couldn't possibly apply for rollback, revert edits, etc. Any suggestions for getting unblocked@ToadetteEdit Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Me Da Wikipedian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry this is a bit long, but there's a lot too say. First of all, I would like to say that I understand why I was blocked (for a series of unintentional disruptive edits during the Counter-Vandalism process). While I can not promise that I will not make another mistake (as I most likely will), I can promise that I will continue to try to learn and improve. Below are some useful contributions that the block prevents me from doing. Second of all, I have been improving. I had around 64% accuracy in my first week, the next 2 weeks around 97%, and the next 2 weeks around 99%. I will continue to improve, but needs you to gain experience, something hard to do when you are blocked. Third of all, I believe that, while I have an unacceptable false positive rate, I am doing more good than harm. 99% percent accuracy definetly on average helpful (even when considering that 1 mistake is more harmful than 1 correct revert is good). Next, I would like to explain the specific edits that led to the most recent block (although I understand that the pattern is the larger issue). The mistake highlighted by the IP was an honest mistake, don't know what I was thinking. The second issue was very confusing, and both me and an administator though it was vandalism. The 3rd issue was my mistake, I didn't see that that was spam and thought it was a good source. The 4th case was my attempt to remove personal attacks, although in retrospect I see how that makes reading the talk page annoying and confusing. The 5th was an edgecase, as the admin there pointed out, a judgment call, and a very similar case was decided to be protected right above. The 6th was a mistake, I thought there were 2 disruptive IPs on that range. I understand that these were quite disruptive however. In summary, I am really sorry for all disruption caused, and would like to be unblocked, and will try to not cause anymore accidental disruption. If totally necessary, I will refrain from administrative areas for some time, but as mentioned above I think I do more good than harm and would rather not. I would refrain from removing personal attacks for a month of two per @ToadetteEdit. Here are some bad edits I would revert if unblocked (many of them may be reverted by the time you see this/I post it. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Other things this prevents me from doing include my GA nomination, my DYK nomination, CVUA, expanding Sukhothai (city), etc. Requesting that I be unblocked for the above reasons.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Sorry this is a bit long, but there's a lot too say. First of all, I would like to say that I understand why I was blocked (for a series of unintentional disruptive edits during the Counter-Vandalism process). While I can not promise that I will not make another mistake (as I most likely will), I can promise that I will continue to try to learn and improve. Below are some useful contributions that the block prevents me from doing. Second of all, I have been improving. I had around 64% accuracy in my first week, the next 2 weeks around 97%, and the next 2 weeks around 99%. I will continue to improve, but needs you to gain experience, something hard to do when you are blocked. Third of all, I believe that, while I have an unacceptable false positive rate, I am doing more good than harm. 99% percent accuracy definetly on average helpful (even when considering that 1 mistake is more harmful than 1 correct revert is good). Next, I would like to explain the specific edits that led to the most recent block (although I understand that the pattern is the larger issue). The mistake highlighted by the IP was an honest mistake, don't know what I was thinking. The second issue was very confusing, and both me and an administator though it was vandalism. The 3rd issue was my mistake, I didn't see that that was spam and thought it was a good source. The 4th case was my attempt to remove personal attacks, although in retrospect I see how that makes reading the talk page annoying and confusing. The 5th was an edgecase, as the admin there pointed out, a judgment call, and a very similar case was decided to be protected right above. The 6th was a mistake, I thought there were 2 disruptive IPs on that range. I understand that these were quite disruptive however. In summary, I am really sorry for all disruption caused, and would like to be unblocked, and will try to not cause anymore accidental disruption. If totally necessary, I will refrain from administrative areas for some time, but as mentioned above I think I do more good than harm and would rather not. I would refrain from removing personal attacks for a month of two per @[[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]]. Here are some bad edits I would revert if unblocked (many of them may be reverted by the time you see this/I post it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascale_Fung&curid=51690740&diff=1222443839&oldid=1222443717] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_III_of_England&diff=prev&oldid=1222595166] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chocolate_milk&curid=167891&diff=1222592556&oldid=1221551469] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diljit_Dosanjh&curid=27163983&diff=1222588128&oldid=1222174634] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_San_Sebasti%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=1222595698] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samarth_Ramdas&diff=1222595568&oldid=1220279820] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercedes-Benz_M104_engine&diff=prev&oldid=1222595558] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_Palace_F.C.&diff=1222594656&oldid=1222383041] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._P._Morgan&diff=prev&oldid=1222516970] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_satellite&diff=prev&oldid=1222541072]. Other things this prevents me from doing include my GA nomination, my DYK nomination, CVUA, expanding [[Sukhothai (city)]], etc. Requesting that I be unblocked for the above reasons. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sorry this is a bit long, but there's a lot too say. First of all, I would like to say that I understand why I was blocked (for a series of unintentional disruptive edits during the Counter-Vandalism process). While I can not promise that I will not make another mistake (as I most likely will), I can promise that I will continue to try to learn and improve. Below are some useful contributions that the block prevents me from doing. Second of all, I have been improving. I had around 64% accuracy in my first week, the next 2 weeks around 97%, and the next 2 weeks around 99%. I will continue to improve, but needs you to gain experience, something hard to do when you are blocked. Third of all, I believe that, while I have an unacceptable false positive rate, I am doing more good than harm. 99% percent accuracy definetly on average helpful (even when considering that 1 mistake is more harmful than 1 correct revert is good). Next, I would like to explain the specific edits that led to the most recent block (although I understand that the pattern is the larger issue). The mistake highlighted by the IP was an honest mistake, don't know what I was thinking. The second issue was very confusing, and both me and an administator though it was vandalism. The 3rd issue was my mistake, I didn't see that that was spam and thought it was a good source. The 4th case was my attempt to remove personal attacks, although in retrospect I see how that makes reading the talk page annoying and confusing. The 5th was an edgecase, as the admin there pointed out, a judgment call, and a very similar case was decided to be protected right above. The 6th was a mistake, I thought there were 2 disruptive IPs on that range. I understand that these were quite disruptive however. In summary, I am really sorry for all disruption caused, and would like to be unblocked, and will try to not cause anymore accidental disruption. If totally necessary, I will refrain from administrative areas for some time, but as mentioned above I think I do more good than harm and would rather not. I would refrain from removing personal attacks for a month of two per @[[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]]. Here are some bad edits I would revert if unblocked (many of them may be reverted by the time you see this/I post it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascale_Fung&curid=51690740&diff=1222443839&oldid=1222443717] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_III_of_England&diff=prev&oldid=1222595166] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chocolate_milk&curid=167891&diff=1222592556&oldid=1221551469] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diljit_Dosanjh&curid=27163983&diff=1222588128&oldid=1222174634] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_San_Sebasti%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=1222595698] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samarth_Ramdas&diff=1222595568&oldid=1220279820] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercedes-Benz_M104_engine&diff=prev&oldid=1222595558] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_Palace_F.C.&diff=1222594656&oldid=1222383041] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._P._Morgan&diff=prev&oldid=1222516970] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_satellite&diff=prev&oldid=1222541072]. Other things this prevents me from doing include my GA nomination, my DYK nomination, CVUA, expanding [[Sukhothai (city)]], etc. Requesting that I be unblocked for the above reasons. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sorry this is a bit long, but there's a lot too say. First of all, I would like to say that I understand why I was blocked (for a series of unintentional disruptive edits during the Counter-Vandalism process). While I can not promise that I will not make another mistake (as I most likely will), I can promise that I will continue to try to learn and improve. Below are some useful contributions that the block prevents me from doing. Second of all, I have been improving. I had around 64% accuracy in my first week, the next 2 weeks around 97%, and the next 2 weeks around 99%. I will continue to improve, but needs you to gain experience, something hard to do when you are blocked. Third of all, I believe that, while I have an unacceptable false positive rate, I am doing more good than harm. 99% percent accuracy definetly on average helpful (even when considering that 1 mistake is more harmful than 1 correct revert is good). Next, I would like to explain the specific edits that led to the most recent block (although I understand that the pattern is the larger issue). The mistake highlighted by the IP was an honest mistake, don't know what I was thinking. The second issue was very confusing, and both me and an administator though it was vandalism. The 3rd issue was my mistake, I didn't see that that was spam and thought it was a good source. The 4th case was my attempt to remove personal attacks, although in retrospect I see how that makes reading the talk page annoying and confusing. The 5th was an edgecase, as the admin there pointed out, a judgment call, and a very similar case was decided to be protected right above. The 6th was a mistake, I thought there were 2 disruptive IPs on that range. I understand that these were quite disruptive however. In summary, I am really sorry for all disruption caused, and would like to be unblocked, and will try to not cause anymore accidental disruption. If totally necessary, I will refrain from administrative areas for some time, but as mentioned above I think I do more good than harm and would rather not. I would refrain from removing personal attacks for a month of two per @[[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]]. Here are some bad edits I would revert if unblocked (many of them may be reverted by the time you see this/I post it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascale_Fung&curid=51690740&diff=1222443839&oldid=1222443717] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_III_of_England&diff=prev&oldid=1222595166] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chocolate_milk&curid=167891&diff=1222592556&oldid=1221551469] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diljit_Dosanjh&curid=27163983&diff=1222588128&oldid=1222174634] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_San_Sebasti%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=1222595698] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samarth_Ramdas&diff=1222595568&oldid=1220279820] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercedes-Benz_M104_engine&diff=prev&oldid=1222595558] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_Palace_F.C.&diff=1222594656&oldid=1222383041] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._P._Morgan&diff=prev&oldid=1222516970] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_satellite&diff=prev&oldid=1222541072]. Other things this prevents me from doing include my GA nomination, my DYK nomination, CVUA, expanding [[Sukhothai (city)]], etc. Requesting that I be unblocked for the above reasons. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have made more clear that I was hoping for non-reverts when I recommended providing examples for future contributions, but okay... You would revert Special:Diff/1222443839, as an unblock request example? Using which summary? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would do it manually, and explain that at least part of it is in fact sourced. @ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you click "undo" on the edit, provide an explanatory summary and save the page? Or multiple edits? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would do neither. I would manually look through, see what is backed by that source, and either remove the rest or find sources for it@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Then please go ahead, imagine you could do so right now – which content exactly would you restore or which source would you add? What exactly would happen? (superseded by edit conflict, already resolved) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, after looking at this, the sole reference appear to be a broken link (something I caught when trying to see what should be removed and not), so I would probably leave it alone Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha! Yes. Thanks. I hope the block wasn't needed to reach that conclusion because else you'd have already demonstrated its necessity. See, I'd prefer you not to revert edits for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not to step on ToBeFree's toes in guiding this, but this is kinda the problem. You said you would revert this because part of it was "in fact sourced". But the unsourced BLP parts still have to be removed, and through the course of this guided questioning, you admit you never even checked the source before that. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I never said that I would revert the entire thing, just the parts that were sourced. When I was asked to specifically say which parts were sourced (which in the actual case of a revert like this I would do), I realized it shouldn't have been reverted, something that I would have realized before actually reverting@Ferret@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's okay; this may well be true. I think there were cases leading to questions and warnings above where the realization didn't come before someone complained, but I'm fine with assuming that you'd have noticed the issue with reverting Special:Diff/1222443839 while doing so. Having to provide a list of diffs you'd revert puts you under some time pressure because if you submit the list too late, people could just say you copied others' already-performed actions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Would you be willing to unblock me, and, if so, on what conditions, if any?@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Me Da Wikipedian, in the edit warring block section above, I had already noticed a focus on percentages/statistics regarding good vs. bad edits. I'm highly sympathetic about this as I love statistics and I do also specifically love statistics about Wikipedia edits. However, they're not really going to help with understanding the issue or demonstrating an understanding in an unblock request; they're unsuitable as arguments for an unblock, I'd say. Of the diff list you provided as an example, I only found one that would be obviously problematic to revert. Special:Diff/1222595568, for example, is less clear. In situations such as that diff, editors may reasonably argue that the response to apparent content removal vandalism can't always be going to a library and checking every reference before undoing the vandalism. Reverting Special:Diff/1222443839 would almost certainly have been a bad idea, reverting Special:Diff/1222595568 is a difficult decision. And the others, if I have checked correctly, are fine to be reverted.

You may now say that these other diffs demonstrate that unblocking you would mainly help the encyclopedia, but it's not that easy. If you don't make a good revert, someone more experienced will eventually probably do so. Your presence in that case just shortens the revert time, which may not be that important. If you make a bad revert, however, damage that would otherwise not have happened is suddenly introduced by an extended-confirmed user whose edits are exempt from most manual and automated checks. No percentage can explain this imbalance.

I personally would prefer not to unblock at the moment as I believe a month of pause would be beneficial to everyone involved; in case someone wants to unblock, perhaps 0RR (prohibiting any reverts) and a requirement to stay away from administrative-action-requesting pages except for filing really necessary vandalism reports at AIV may be an idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am using the statistics to show that I am doing less harm than good, as 100:1 (even with your caveat) still indicates that much more good than harm done. Is it really 100 times more disruptive to revert me once in a while when a make a mistake than 100 bad edits being reverted faster are good? I explained about your second example earlier. To your first, if experienced editors who know what theyre doing reasonably disagree, that is hardly grounds to block me/keep me block. What was wrong with the 3rd. A bad revert, will, as this talk page shows, be quickly caught and reverted. Keep in mind that all but the first of the potentially problematic reverts wound up being reverted by someone else.

"Your presence in that case just shortens the revert time, which may not be that important"-I disagree, the quicker it is reverted, the less people see it.

Why do you think that a month of pause would be good, because as previously I can't gain experience and improved whilst blocked. And how about the rest of my unblock As for the last sentence, how long would these proposed restrictions be in place?@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The restriction would be in place for no more than a year, and a month or two would be more reasonable given that the restriction could simply be avoided by waiting a month instead of agreeing to it. But part of why this block automatically expires is that I'm not really interested in having this discussion, or making others spend too much time on it. A quick "a month pause is a good idea; you can wait" decline might be my favored approach. I have provided all explanations I need to, I think, and I notice more and more that I won't be convinced to unblock, so I hope it's understandable if I stop replying here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that is fair. I will leave the unblock open for another admin, but I get this isn't going anywhere@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Research your facts

ambassador position is vacant 2A00:23EE:1038:54B2:4424:5CE:C1D5:35C6 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean, what ambassador, where, and how this is relevant. Also, I am blocked, so I can't edit any page other than this right now, so I'm probably not the best person to go to Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP presumably refers to their only other edit, concerning content that you reinstated three times between 3 May and 5 May. I note that on this revert, you included the comment "Unexplained content removal" in your edit summary, even though the edit that you reverted had stated "Update , vacant ambassador position, uk.gov reference of list diplomatic staff", and included a source (even if malformed). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)