User talk:Albertaont

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Albertaont, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Current Events

Hello. I wanted to invite you to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events as you have done edits on Portal:Current events. Most editors aren't aware that the project became active again in April 2020. Just wanted to inform you about that and hope you join. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in New York (state)

With this edit you reverted a Monkbot/task 18 edit with the edit summary: bot seems to be malfunctioning. It is not obvious to me that the bot's edit is in anyway incorrect. Can you explain the malfunction that you think occurred when the bot made that edit?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for prototype testing

Hello there!

My name is AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC), and I recently joined The Wikimedia Foundation and am writing to invite you to participate in a user testing study that I'm currently conducting for The Wikipedia Library team. I noticed you've been an editor on Wikipedia so I thought I would reach out to see if you're interested in testing a prototype of the library's new Homepage?[reply]

This would involve my emailing you the prototype with a list of instructions and questions. The purpose of the study is to get a better understanding of what people think of the new Homepage design! If you're interested, please let me know here or feel free to email me at avardhana@wikimedia.org, and I'll be in touch via email! If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them.

Thank you, Aishwarya

YouTube interview with Palestine Children's Relief Fund founder as a citation

Hello there! I just started a discussion on the talk page for the article Palestine Children's Relief Fund, about whether or not an interview with Steve Sosebee by Vaush on YouTube should be used as a source on the article in question. I invite you to share any thoughts that you may have on the matter there. Cheers! —Matthew - (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Canadian Indian residential school system

On 25 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Canadian Indian residential school system, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits as you persisted in making the same edits at Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

The complete post I restored is as follows:

"A false story from Asian News International claimed Zhihui was asked to stay in Tokyo for an extra anti-doping test "and that if she fails the test, India's Mirabai Chanu will be awarded gold". [cite 1] However the so-called extra test appeared to be complete fabrication as neither the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Testing Agency (ITA) knew anything about it. [cite 2]"

Cite 1: [1] I have sourced the original article from ANI.

Cite 2: [2] This article clearly states that the statement from ANI was fake news, furthermore if the medal was stripped or a positive doping test followed in the aftermath of the second article there would be other sources that would mention it. Furthermore, [Cite 1] collaborates [Cite 2], as the statement from Cite 1 is still shown to exist. Even had Cite 1 already been revised by ANI, Source 2 is still r/s on its own.

User:Black Kite's diff [3] said to (rm editorialising and original research, you have been warned about this already). There was no editorializing or original research in the latest version from above. I request for my editing ability to be restored as my latest version was neither a disruptive edit (as it had been substantively changed regarding prior concerns), does not include editorialization, and is not the product of original research.

Albertaont (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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=The complete post I restored is as follows:

"A false story from Asian News International claimed Zhihui was asked to stay in Tokyo for an extra anti-doping test "and that if she fails the test, India's Mirabai Chanu will be awarded gold". [cite 1] However the so-called extra test appeared to be complete fabrication as neither the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Testing Agency (ITA) knew anything about it. [cite 2]"

Cite 1: [https://www.aninews.in/news/sports/others/tokyo-olympics-weightlifter-hou-to-be-tested-by-anti-doping-authorities-silver-medallist-chanu-stands-chance-to-get-medal-upgrade20210726131639/] I have sourced the original article from [[ANI]].

Cite 2: [https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1110965/weightlifting-fake-news] This article clearly states that the statement from ANI was fake news, furthermore if the medal was stripped or a positive doping test followed in the aftermath of the second article there would be other sources that would mention it. Furthermore, [Cite 1] collaborates [Cite 2], as the statement from Cite 1 is still shown to exist. Even had Cite 1 already been revised by [[ANI]], Source 2 is still r/s on its own.

[[User:Black Kite]]'s diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hou_Zhihui&diff=1036657586&oldid=1036656341] said to (rm editorialising and original research, you have been warned about this already). There was no editorializing or original research in the latest version from above. I request for my editing ability to be restored as my latest version was neither a disruptive edit (as it had been substantively changed regarding prior concerns), does not include editorialization, and is not the product of original research.  

 [[User:Albertaont|Albertaont]] ([[User talk:Albertaont#top|talk]]) 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |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=The complete post I restored is as follows:

"A false story from Asian News International claimed Zhihui was asked to stay in Tokyo for an extra anti-doping test "and that if she fails the test, India's Mirabai Chanu will be awarded gold". [cite 1] However the so-called extra test appeared to be complete fabrication as neither the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Testing Agency (ITA) knew anything about it. [cite 2]"

Cite 1: [https://www.aninews.in/news/sports/others/tokyo-olympics-weightlifter-hou-to-be-tested-by-anti-doping-authorities-silver-medallist-chanu-stands-chance-to-get-medal-upgrade20210726131639/] I have sourced the original article from [[ANI]].

Cite 2: [https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1110965/weightlifting-fake-news] This article clearly states that the statement from ANI was fake news, furthermore if the medal was stripped or a positive doping test followed in the aftermath of the second article there would be other sources that would mention it. Furthermore, [Cite 1] collaborates [Cite 2], as the statement from Cite 1 is still shown to exist. Even had Cite 1 already been revised by [[ANI]], Source 2 is still r/s on its own.

[[User:Black Kite]]'s diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hou_Zhihui&diff=1036657586&oldid=1036656341] said to (rm editorialising and original research, you have been warned about this already). There was no editorializing or original research in the latest version from above. I request for my editing ability to be restored as my latest version was neither a disruptive edit (as it had been substantively changed regarding prior concerns), does not include editorialization, and is not the product of original research.  

 [[User:Albertaont|Albertaont]] ([[User talk:Albertaont#top|talk]]) 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |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=The complete post I restored is as follows:

"A false story from Asian News International claimed Zhihui was asked to stay in Tokyo for an extra anti-doping test "and that if she fails the test, India's Mirabai Chanu will be awarded gold". [cite 1] However the so-called extra test appeared to be complete fabrication as neither the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Testing Agency (ITA) knew anything about it. [cite 2]"

Cite 1: [https://www.aninews.in/news/sports/others/tokyo-olympics-weightlifter-hou-to-be-tested-by-anti-doping-authorities-silver-medallist-chanu-stands-chance-to-get-medal-upgrade20210726131639/] I have sourced the original article from [[ANI]].

Cite 2: [https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1110965/weightlifting-fake-news] This article clearly states that the statement from ANI was fake news, furthermore if the medal was stripped or a positive doping test followed in the aftermath of the second article there would be other sources that would mention it. Furthermore, [Cite 1] collaborates [Cite 2], as the statement from Cite 1 is still shown to exist. Even had Cite 1 already been revised by [[ANI]], Source 2 is still r/s on its own.

[[User:Black Kite]]'s diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hou_Zhihui&diff=1036657586&oldid=1036656341] said to (rm editorialising and original research, you have been warned about this already). There was no editorializing or original research in the latest version from above. I request for my editing ability to be restored as my latest version was neither a disruptive edit (as it had been substantively changed regarding prior concerns), does not include editorialization, and is not the product of original research.  

 [[User:Albertaont|Albertaont]] ([[User talk:Albertaont#top|talk]]) 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}