User talk:CrazyBoy826/Archive 3

SteamPunk

The personal vendetta vandal is back. (5k characters blanked) Thanks again for your automatic reversion of it the first time! I hardly remembered these people existed but they apparently can't let it go. Back when you reverted their vandalism the first time, without ANY direct accusation I simply listed in public all the facts that make it so obviously this person being petty, in hopes they not do it again (they try a "I'm sweet and innocent" persona in public) so now they used a VPN and made one single 6 character edit before going directly to remove my contrib. (give them an E for effort) This time however, they literally used their favorite catch phrase which I even repeated back to them in that very fight long ago that caused the breakup and bad blood: "Full Stop." Sorry for the inconvenience, I really thought they had gotten over it. Can you please revert it again so it doesn't start to look like just a fight and gum up the arbitration machinery? Thanks! Nemesis75 (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Revert. As mentioned by someone else already, this section is not only poorly written and sourced, but overall unencyclopedic and doesn't have its place in a WP article. Full stop. The rules on WP are clear: in case of recurrent edit conflicts, the original version takes precedence. So either move on, or take it to the talk page. Thank you."

...riiiight, some random new person is so concerned with their vandalism being reverted that they search deep into the long list of edits nobody peruses examines it thoroughly to understand what it means, mentions a previous edit from two months ago and then preemptively mentions reversion conflict and tries to pervert the system of justice with emotional appeals. Totally a different person! Nemesis75 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Schroedinger equation

Stop misusing your editing privileges without understanding of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:2C21:F400:8555:2B40:BD17:202E (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I don't know what you mean because you self-reverted, but attacking users is not the right thing to do. Instead, edit constructively and build to the encyclopedia. CrazyBoy826 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Four Seasons (band) edit

Hello, apologies for improper etiquette, I am new to Wikipedia editing. I noticed you reverted my edit because an insufficient edit summary. I thought my edit summary was substantial, so I am not sure why it was reverted. The statement I removed from the article is factually incorrect. Here is the edit summary attached to my edit:

"The removed sentence says that the band was "one of two" (including the Beach Boys) to achieve chart success. This is factually incorrect. A look at the Billboard charts for the era show that The Supremes, Elvis Presley, and Bobby Vinton all had as many or more #1 hits than The Four Seasons during the same era. Van Tuyl's claim is a hyperbole, never meant to be taken literally."

The sentence I removed was: "The Four Seasons were one of only two American bands (the other being the Beach Boys) to enjoy substantial chart success before, during, and after the British Invasion."

As you can see from the [Billboard charts of the 1960s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_from_1958_to_1969#Statistic_by_decade) (aka the years "before, during, and after the British Invasion"), numerous American bands achieved substantial chart success during the same period. Many American bands had songs stay at #1 for longer than The Four Seasons. The Supremes had 22 #1 singles, The Monkees had 12, The Young Rascals had 10, Elvis Presley had 22, Bobby Vinton had 12. I don't think any reasonable definition of "substantial chart success" would exclude them. I realize the removed sentence has a citation, but if you read the source, the claim clearly has no objective measurement and lacks a citation itself; therefore it is not qualify as a primary source. In contrast, the Billboard charts (linked above) provide quantification of chart success that can easily be operationalized. By any reasonable operationalism of "chart success", the claim in the cited book fails to hold true. Therefore, I think the edit is warranted because it removes a factually incorrect claim. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.96.40 (talk)

Three editors have objected to this inappropriate removal, IP. Now you're edit warring. Knock it off. Grandpallama (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Please assume good faith. We don't want to discourage new editors. Also, don't call anyone "IP". Registered users are not superior to IP addresses. CrazyBoy826 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing bad faith about pointing out that there have been three reverts by three different editors, and that the IP has decided to complain on their talkpages instead of addressing their edits on the article talkpage, nor is there anything wrong with addressing the IP as "IP" in order to differentiate to whom I'm responding. Addressing an IP editor as "IP" in no way suggests they are inferior to registered editors. Getting a lecture about new editors from someone who just started editing a few months ago is the kind of thing that sets experienced editors' hackles on edge, but I know you meant it in good faith; that said, this is your talkpage, so I'll leave any further responses to you. Grandpallama (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect -- When my edit was reverted the first time by Thanoscar21, I received a message stating that my edit was reverted and to use the user's talk page to discuss, which I did. (I received the same message when my 2nd edit was reverted by you). I know that Wikipedia editors must deal with a lot of vandals, and I understand your frustration with people (like me) who don't know the system (like you). I apologize for posting to the wrong Talk page but I am trying to be transparent -- I did not revert Thanoscar's edit without first explaining my case to him and letting him know that I planned to revert.

I am not interested in Wikipedia politics (though perhaps it is unavoidable), but I am interested in sharing my expertise; I teach the History of Rock and Roll (including the British Invasion) at my University and I think that many articles in this area can be improved. I feel that I clearly outlined my case for why the sentence is factually inaccurate, but that the reversions made no substantive comment about why the sentence was reinstated, other than "it has a citation" to the book Popstrology. I have nothing against this book or its author, but it is clearly satire; it is *not* meant to be an encyclopedic book. This should be very clear from the book's cover, which states: "Use the pop music charts to reveal your personality traits, guide your relationships, and discover your true destiny." The jacket cover suggests: "Could your crippling sexual inhibition be a common consequence of being a Pat Boone born in the Year of Elvis Presley?" This should not be an acceptable source for an encyclopedic article, and it is disheartening to see Wikipedians treat its content as undisputable fact.

I hope you can understand my frustration and provide some clarity. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.38.232 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, please respond on my talkpage, and I'll help you. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Magdolna Rúzsa

Hi, I deleted the Magdolna Rúzsa site because I wanted to change the direction of the redirection. Magdolna is her stage name and her real name, that should be used, and Magdi Rúzsa (her nickname and old stage name) should be redirected. Unfortunately the deletion did not help. If you could change the redirection, that would be welcome. Br, vampeare (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my page

It was created by my.... It is yet to be created.. So please take off the speedy deletion notice from my page Nk TheWikipedian (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nk TheWikipedian: Wikipedia has a notability criteria. Pages may only be created if they meet the criteria. Please review the criteria before creating your page. Also, if the page is yet to be created, please start it at Draft:Nivas. K and move it to mainspace when it is ready. CrazyBoy826 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok Nk TheWikipedian (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Holly Black Site

Hi, I am Holly's assistant and have been asked to update her page. I'll be working on rewriting sections and adding in new books, new awards, and updating old information for the next week or so. I am attempting to follow what is already there so I'm unsure how to proceed, and unclear about what "unconstructive" means in this context. Any help is appreciated!— Preceding unsigned comment added by AssistantAtHollyBlack (talk • contribs)

@AssistantAtHollyBlack: This is a case of WP:COI. Make sure to read the page before editing. It is highly discouraged to directly edit articles about yourself or someone you have an external relationship with. If you feel you cannot confidently edit the page, make a request on the talk page. CrazyBoy826 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay I'm not sure I understand. I'm simply adding in awards won and books published. Surely that's allowed? I'm not sure who else would update her site except someone who was asked to. It's very out of date. Can you explain what the offending edits were so I don't do it again? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AssistantAtHollyBlack (talk • contribs)

@AssistantAtHollyBlack: You can update them if you provide a reliable source. Also remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but not on articles) with ~~~~ at the end. CrazyBoy826 18:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, of course. I've added links to every published book and award so far, yet all my work is gone. Is there a way to verify myself? We are both just trying to do our jobs. Thanks. AssistantAtHollyBlack (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@AssistantAtHollyBlack: I have reverted your edits because they are promotional and do not have a neutral point of view. I highly recommend that you suggest the changes on Talk:Holly Black or on WP:COIN. CrazyBoy826 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, CrazyBoy826. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating accounts

there is absolutely no reason you should be creating accounts for other people. If editors need a doppleganger but are unable to create it due to spoofing, they can go through the proper process at WP:ACC. Praxidicae (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. CrazyBoy826—Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll countersign that original statement - stop creating unnecessary dopplegangers - for users or scripts. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last message. Stop doing things like this entirely. Stop creating new accounts. Stop editing userpages that aren't yours. You are dabbling in areas where you shouldn't be. If you continue, I will take this to ANI and request an indefinite block. Praxidicae (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A1 tags

Hi, I removed your tag on Shomberg because it doesn't qualify for A1 - it seems to be an attempt at creating a disambiguation page. You shouldn't tag articles for A1, A3 or A7 immediately after they're created (you tagged this one 3 minutes after creation). The article creator may still be working on expanding the page, so it's best to wait at least 15-30 minutes. If no other entries are added to the page soon it should be turned into a redirect - but it was never an A1. Spicy (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Spicy: OK. I generally wait 10 minutes for draftifying and 20 minutes for speedy deletion, but I may have forgotten. CrazyBoy826 20:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm George Eliot Scholar and you sent me a message earlier stating that you removed the external links I provided on the grounds that they were inappropriate. While I understand the need for caution in order to ensure that each Wikipedia page is accurate and useful, I don't believe that my external links were inappropriate. The Goerge Eliot Archive is a free, noncommercial archive dedicated to works by and about George Eliot. It also contains interactive educational tools such as the interactive chronology of her life and the soon-to-be-launched relationship web that provides a detailed, visual representation of her relationships. The external links I put on the pages I edited were meant to direct users to the appropriate page of the Archive: the page that was dedicated to the work the article was about. Just like Project Gutenburg, which I saw many external links to, my external links were directing users to a free, searchable, public domain version of the relevant text. Not only were these links directly applicable to the articles they were in, they also did not violate any copyright laws and provided access to material that was not appropriate for me to link in the article. Please let me know if there are any concerns that I did not address or if I have misunderstood what I read on the links guidelines page you provided a link for. Thank you for letting me know about your concerns and for discussing this issue with me! George Eliot Scholar (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@George Eliot Scholar: These links are okay, but make sure to review WP:COI before adding more. CrazyBoy826 21:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-generic4im

Template:Uw-generic4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Goute

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

1292simon (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-generic4im

Hi CrazyBoy826. Just wanted to thank you for your willingness to engage on this. Sorry this idea didn't work out, but if I can be of help with any other ideas you might have for UTMs, please reach out, or drop a note at WT:UTM. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Base-building redirect

Hi, I noticed that you undoed the undo I made to the Base-building -> Real-time strategy redirect. May I ask why? The Base Building game genre does not have much to do with RTS and many games in the genre are not strategy at all, so redirecting there makes no sense whatsoever. See https://www.reddit.com/r/BaseBuildingGames/wiki/index for a relatively complete list of games that belong in the genre. If it has to be redirected somewhere, then Construction and management simulation would likely make most sense. Andemon (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Andemon: A blank page does not help the reader in any way. The best solution here is to list it at WP:RfD, which I will now do. CrazyBoy826 16:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Andemon: I'm not sure what you mean? Base-building is stated in the lead of the real-time strategy article. CrazyBoy826 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Plopping down pre-designed buildings is at most marginally related to the Base-Building genre. BB genre covers games where you actually design bases, such as Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld, Factorio, Dungeon Keeper, etc. Back when the RTS article was written, the BB genre was relatively unknown (possibly non-existent). nowadays it's becoming increasingly popular, so I expect someone to get around to writing an article for it, but in the meantime the redirect should be fixed to something more accurate. Such as Construction and management simulation. Andemon (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn - Quick Survey

Hello CrazyBoy826! Thank you so much for testing RedWarn so far. I kindly ask that you fill in a short survey regarding the future of RedWarn and to help me visualise general user opinion surrounding certain features.

To access the survey, visit: https://devices.edxt.net/redwarnSurvey

Thank you again for your continued feedback and support, it is greatly appreciated. Ed6767 talk! 22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like to opt-out of receiving messages regarding RedWarn, or have any questions, please let me know on my talk page.

OK. CrazyBoy826 22:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oe'r those gloomy hills of darkness

I see that the mistakes on that page have still not been corrected. I assume therefore that you have not had an opportunity to check out the sources which back up the corrections I had made, and which were then rejected. In addition to the sources I quoted in my earlier posting to you, I have just noticed that the relevant section of the Kirk volume is available on Google Books, and so you will be able to check there whether my corrections are accurate or no.

Ucluelet & Tofino

Why did you change those to blue snow. Snow is a type of precipitation and they all should be the same colour. I left the precip days alone because there are complaints that some can't see the green. Making the snow blue blends it in with the precip days making it harder to see. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, green snow doesn't look as well and people aren't used to it. Snow is not green, it is white (and closer to blue than green). CrazyBoy826 18:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

However, at Template talk:Weather box#RfC - precipitation colour you expressed a view that the precipitation should be one colour. If they are to be blue then the precipitation days needs to change to green and the temperatures need to change to pastel or some other combination of contrasting colours. Changing the precipitation to green was to enable it to stand out from the cold temperatures and windchills. Having blue snow blends in with the precipitation days. I agree snow is white but it isn't closer to blue. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe where I live, because snow is rare and is often mixed with rain. CambridgeBayWeather, the thought of green snow is absurd, while slightly blue snow doesn't feel that weird. However, there is no consensus for consistency (I neither encouraged nor discouraged it), we should go with consensus for each one (if possible). CrazyBoy826 21:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"2020 virus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2020 virus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#2020 virus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Jackie Mason

Seems like the user is constantly changing IP addresses to vandalise the article. Got a smart idea^{Tell me about it📩} 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Get a smart idea, I have put the article on RPP. CrazyBoy826 18:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Giant lock edit revert

Can you please elaborate why you think my change to the page was not constructive? @CrazyBoy826: Dolecek (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It clarified the actual situation particularly for NetBSD and OpenBSD, which has wrong and misleading info.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolecek (talk • contribs)

@Dolecek:Make sure to sign your posts in the future with ~~~~. for the edit, you removed many references, and your additions were unsourced; see WP:V. CrazyBoy826 20:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Weather boxes

Thank you for all of your climate data edits, especially little known places like Wenquan, where you began. I support your idea of making single-line display the default for the weather boxes, and I think I've found the area in the template where the change needs to be made, but I've never worked with Lua and I'd rather run it by someone else instead of making the change on my own, even if I can be sure that it would be only a sandbox change and not a live one. Are you familiar enough with the code that you'd know exactly what to type, and where? Thank you, —Soap— 19:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Soap: Places like Wenquan were from my very first edits. I've now mostly departed from the weather box and focused on anti-vandalism tasks, but I noticed this change. However, I do not know Lua and I can't make the change myself. Maybe ask one of the regular contributors to the module ? CrazyBoy826

Ah, thank you for the prompt reply. It's true .... I basically looked at your earliest and latest edits and made the assumption that the ones in between were similar. As for asking the template editors, I think we already have, as they seem to watch the talk page where we've both posted. I might try again with a more detailed request if I can't figure out the code on my own. —Soap— 20:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Firsts in Aviation

I did cite sources in all of them. How much more do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conphucius (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Conphucius, citing Wikipedia is not reliable. Instead of citing a page, if the reference is on the same page, then go to the reference. It will either have <ref>...</ref> or <ref name="...">. If there is no name, add one. Then, you can go to the place you need the refernece and put <ref name="..." />. This will cite the same reference as above. CrazyBoy826 21:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

you undid my revision

my edit was explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhota naatak (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Chhota naatak, it was not adequately explained, "he claimed he had not sought a briefing from the BOM" needs a reference. The previous version was already referenced. See WP:V. CrazyBoy826 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It is the same reference. the original version mis-quotes the reference. The existing reference still on the site states Mr Rennick has no yet sought a briefing. briefing is distinctly different from meeting and i simply corrected it. my edits therefore did not remove a reference, it instead correctly quoted the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhota naatak (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oversimplify

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Oversimplify requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded. The transwikied text can be found at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oversimplify.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Wagner

Hi there,

I saw you tag this article for deletion under A1. A3 is a better than A1 in this situation, as the article contained virtually no content whatsoever except from the title itself. Context is slightly different than content, and therefore A1 is generally used when the subject matter of the article is not clear. (Which is technically not the case here, as the subject (Nancy Wagner) can be identified, just that the article has no content).

Also, echoing what other editors have said earlier on your talk page, the general practice is not to tag articles for A1 or A3 quickly after the article's creation, so we can allow more time for the article creator to develop their article (with the understanding that they may not publish everything in their first edit). Please do wait for at least 15 minutes before tagging the article under those criteria. Of course, it if it an attack page, blatant spam or copyright violation, then it's okay to tag them straight away. Hope this helps --Dps04 (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dps04: OK. For A1, I generally tag them if the subject cannot be identified in the body. We don't know who (or what) Nancy Wanger is. Any reasonable editor would put at least one sentence with context. CrazyBoy826 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

CrazyBoy826, Yeah I think A1 works fine (though I still think A3 is slightly better), so no big deal about that. But do remember to wait a while before tagging articles with A1 and A3 (and to a lesser extent, A7). Thanks! -- Dps04 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing valid tags

G5 applies as the creator was socking and the parent account was blocked at the time of creation. It does not require it to be identical to the deleted version for g5 to apply. Revert your removal. The redirect is also worthless as the target article does not contain a single mention of this, nor should it. Praxidicae (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae I restored only G5. the g4 criteria says it has to be substantially identical to the previous version, which it is not. the previous was an article, while this is a redirect. CrazyBoy826 17:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't need an explanation for what the criteria is, I'm fully aware. However I will advise you one last time to stop getting involved in areas which you lack experience. It's getting quite tiresome. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, but it does for g4. CrazyBoy826 17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering your tenuous history here, I don't think you should be lecturing anyone on what criteria apply or do not. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You said it wasn't substantially identical, CrazyBoy826, can I ask how you know this ? Nick (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: How about WP:Be bold? An expert at anything was once a beginner. I can stop changing criteria, but if I stay out of areas I lack experience in, I won't ever get experience. Nick, it was listed at AfD and arguments included WP:GNG so I know it was an article. CrazyBoy826 17:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

BOLD is no longer an option when you've been asked by multiple people ranging from experienced editors to administrators, to stop trying to get involved in areas (specifically administrative) which you lack the experience and competence in. Praxidicae (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A new editor joins Wikipedia, and they learn the technical aspects (wikimarkup, navigation, etc.) They start editing, and make mistakes, and others assume good faith and help them. Over time, they get better at editing, and start to take part in activities such as CSD, XfD, AIV, etc. Each step along the process requires being bold and stepping out of your comfort zone. On the other hand, being bold and doing something new, only to find that editors are warning you every second edit you make, isn't very encouraging. I am assuming good faith, and I'm not trying to harm anyone, but stepping out of one's comfort zone and making mistakes is a necessary - and important - part of being a good Wikipedian. CrazyBoy826 18:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: So what do I do? Get an RfA? Everyone was once a beginner, and if discussions like this happen for every user, they won't become advanced users. What I am doing improves Wikipedia, so I be bold (considering constructive feedback others have given me) and make the change. CrazyBoy826 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If editors are "warning you every second edit you make", that's an indication that you're being too bold and should slow down. It's expected that new users will make mistakes, but if you're making the same kind of mistakes over and over, that's a problem. Spicy (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae and Spicy: There has been a discussion involving me in XfD. I have continued to nominate pages and closing obviously uncontroversial requests, but otherwise, I have been staying out of it. This is the first discussion on speedy deletion, so I can stay out of it, see how it's done, and start again after some time when I know how the process works. CrazyBoy826 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are really missing the point, especially since you think RFA is even on the table. The problem is you're finding areas that you shouldn't be dabbling in, being told to stop doing what you're doing, and then following that by doing the same thing elsewhere. Stick to doing stuff that is uncontroversial until you're more experienced. That is the point being made here. You get experience by also seeing how others do things and gaining community trust. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae I have not said RfA was on the table. I do not plan to have a RfA until at least six months - I just mentioned it. CrazyBoy826 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi CrazyBoy826! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Good article nominations, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Weatherbox LTA

I created a LTA case for the IP-hopping weatherbox vandal 24.68.2.110. Any additional information that you might find or other suspected IPs should be added here. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Base-building" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Base-building. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Base-building until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, it's me again.

I notice you havent edited the wiki for about two weeks, and I hope everything is okay in life. Again I want to thank you for all of the hard work youve done ... it's difficult sometimes to come back day after day doing good work on Wikipedia and getting nothing back. I think I speak for the wider Wikipedia community in saying that we appreciate your content edits, ... in my case, especially edits like this one where most people wouldn't have noticed anything needed to be fixed .... as well as your page patrolling and anti-vandalism efforts, both of which are stressful areas that even many seasoned Wikipedia administrators avoid. You've been very patient dealing with difficult people as evidence above shows. You were also helpful to me higher up on this page when I asked for your help with an issue that I should have handled on my own, and I really enjoyed your addition to my climate data essay.

I feel like an absolute heel now, because I strongly suspect you are the master account behind the sock farm linked right above us, per the reasons I spelled out here. I hope I am wrong and I am fully prepared to have this blow up in my face, or to be totally ignored as insufficient evidence. In such a case, I imagine you must be on a break and I hope to see you return to editing. Please don't let me push you away.

To anyone else reading this: please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, —Soap— 15:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I should add, when I say I feel like a heel, I mean because I'm coming here to accuse you of socking, when you have always been kind to me. My positive words above are sincere and not an attempt to cushion an unfriendly accusation. —Soap— 17:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am going to mark this as  resolved because I dont expect this account to ever return to editing and because I dont think any action needs to be taken at this point. I am watching for IP edits but that problem might go away on its own now that it's attracted wider attention. —Soap— 12:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

1. The IPs were changing the color in weatherboxes (mainly from green to blue) without consensus, while I mainly added information to weatherboxes and changed the color from blue to green.
2. You mentioned that I had a page that listed the pages the IPs edited and that I was "too good" at finding them. I found these IPs by checking the articles that they targeted.
3. I also suddenly stopped editing on June 12, 2020, around the same time the IPs were rangeblocked. At this time, personal matters suddenly prevented me from editing Wikipedia, and later, I decided it was time to move on from editing.
4. I was also one of the users that reverted the IP's edits and reported them. CrazyBoy826 03:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RedWarn account

Hello - do you still have access to the RedWarn account? RedWarn (talk · contribs) Ed6767 talk! 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve French Federation of Baseball and Softball

Hello, CrazyBoy826,

Thank you for creating French Federation of Baseball and Softball.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Add national and international organisations this sports agency is affiliated with. Information from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_fran%C3%A7aise_de_baseball_et_softball might also be translated and added.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Infodemic

Hello, CrazyBoy826. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Infodemic".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Igbo cuisine

Hello, CrazyBoy826. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Igbo cuisine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Toll

Hello, CrazyBoy826. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Toll".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User Account User:RedWarn

Hey CrazyBoy826, I noticed that you created the RedWarn account on the 11th of May. I was wondering if you still have access to the account. I would like to use the account as a bot to manage abuse reports of RedWarn, and to put the userscript there. If you still have access to the account, please put a message either on my talk page or RedWarn's talk page. Thanks! ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 04:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:～～～～

Template:～～～～ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Prasanth Kumar Jha

Hello, CrazyBoy826. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Prasanth Kumar Jha".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)