User talk:Iaritmioawp

Sorry, but your username is not acceptable, as it rather implies that you're here officially representing the game 'Path of Exile'. Regardless of whether this is the case, I formally ask that you post a request to have your username changed before you make any more edits.

Thanks, and I apologize for the inconvenience. DS (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a new username as advised. [[1]] Thank you for looking into my case. PathOfExile (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having familiarized myself with multiple pages' worth of Wikipedia policies, I now fully understand that what I misconstrued as "vandalism" was, in fact, good-faith editing, and I am now also fully aware of the steps I should've taken. I did, and do, apologize for any misbehavior on my part, and I solemnly promise that it will not happen again. Everything I did wrong stemmed from my ignorance regarding the way things are expected to be done on Wikipedia which I have no excuse for other than the fact that I was completely new to editing Wikipedia at the time, bar a few typo corrections I faintly recall introducing in the past without even registering a username. I only ask you to assume good faith and give me a chance to prove that I mean Wikipedia no harm, and that I'm now fully aware that I should be conversant with all the policies that might apply to any of the changes I make anywhere on Wikipedia before I introduce said changes. I believe that all the contributions I have made to Wikipedia since the edit-warring incident, except perhaps the somewhat inappropriately formulated unblock requests that I posted on my personal talk page(s), and for whose overly aggressive tone I apologize, reflect that. PathOfExile (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that your statement is impressive, both substantively (accepting good faith) and stylistically. I'm just curious about one thing. If you are reinstated, what do you want to do at Wikipedia? To date, it seems like your only interest is the listing of the video game at Permanent death.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in removing Path of Exile from the article was due to my belief, which I still hold, that it didn't belong in it. My inappropriate approach to introducing this minor improvement to the Permanent death page notwithstanding, I believe I have outlined the reasons for my doing so sufficiently to demonstrate that the change was merited, though I have indeed crossed the line with its ham-handed enforcement.

As for my future plans, only time will tell. I will definitely post another message on the talk page of the article I wanted to improve, addressing the points made by the IP that edit-warred with me, and I will definitely also re-introduce the change I made to the article prior to my being blocked. Other than that, I will continue to browse Wikipedia as a reader, and whenever I spot something that could be improved in any of the articles I read, and which I feel competent to improve, I will make whatever improvements I consider beneficial to said articles – all the while taking utmost care not to violate any of Wikipedia's policies.

In order to further demonstrate my good faith, I would like to formally request that my sock-puppet account, User:I_really_need_that_username, be re-blocked as I have no intention of ever using it again. PathOfExile (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. DS (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PathOfExile (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed

PathOfExile, I have renamed you to "Iaritmioawp". This was after much consideration of your situation, I thought it worth giving you a chance. There's some conditions to giving you this chance though.

We don't see a repeat of this. The amount of snark and insulting language in there is something we just don't need on Wikipedia and if I see anything close to it from you I will be blocking you indefinitely.
You get on and work on subjects which are not about Path Of Exile. If you're just here to promote that game, then I'm sorry to say, we don't need you. I'd much rather wait around for someone who's not got such a vested interest in the topic. Any time that you do want changes related to the game, please suggest them on the talk page of the article and get consensus for them. That's consistent with the advice for editors with a conflict of interest
Your other account will remain blocked and I don't want to hear about you creating further accounts or editing logged out to avoid these conditions.

I've posted something similar on the Administator's Noticeboard. If you object to my suggestions, I'm sure we can take this back to the Administrators Noticeboard, but I doubt you'll get such a generous offer elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That I should learn from my past mistakes is undeniable. I fully understand and accept all of the above conditions of my reinstatement.

Just for the record, I feel compelled to make it clear that I am not here to promote anything or anyone, and that I have no vested interest in presenting any subject in any peculiar manner. I am not paid to be here, and I am not affiliated with Path of Exile any more than I am with Wikipedia. My only "affiliation" with Path of Exile was that I had spent several hours playing that game, and the only reason why I wanted to remove it from a Wikipedia article was the fact that it did not belong in it. There is absolutely no conflict of interest to speak of regarding my account, even though I admittedly played no small part in making it look like there might've been. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear... should make keeping away from it even easier! Worm^TT(talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:New Zealand Law Commission logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:New Zealand Law Commission logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention; I thought that providing a rationale for using a non-free logo already covered that, but apparently not. I believe the image is now properly tagged. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An Imperial Affliction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Green. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention; the link has been fixed. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plowback retained earnings

The original message was posted at WilyD's talk page

You seem really confused about what's plausible (or what the purpose of redirects are?) A person typing in "plowback retained earnings" is making a mistake, in some sense, but it's the kind of mistake people make; maybe they heard someone say "Plowback (retained earnings)" but misheard the implied grammar, maybe they have an imperfect recollection of an explanation. Since there's no advantage to deleting redirects, redirects aren't just kept when they're common (Plowback as a redirect isn't just "plausible" - it's "common"), but when they're plausible. There's no sense in writing an encyclopaedia then making the articles hard to find. WilyD 15:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plowback retained earnings is an entirely implausible search term. There's no reason to believe anyone would type in the entire phrase; rather, they'd go for Plowback alone, which is a plausible search term as it's a legitimate synonym of Retained earnings, and hope for the best, or they'd go for Retained earnings which is also a plausible search term as it's the actual name of the thing they'd be looking for. I've yet to hear anyone use both of these terms in one sentence other than to explain that they mean the same thing or, curiously, to rant that they don't. I agree that redirects are cheap, and people can certainly mishear/misremember things, but we need to draw the line somewhere. Would you also advocate the creation of such "plausible" redirects as Plowback earnings, Retained plowback, Plow back retention, etc. because "there's no sense in writing an encyclopaedia then making the articles hard to find?" I certainly hope not. If I were to go ahead and create all of these and more, it would immediately be recognized as disruptive, and for a very good reason. Implausible redirects do not improve the encyclopedia, Plowback retained earnings is one such redirect, and the direction we must take regarding it is thus perfectly clear. That this unequivocal case of a bad redirect has to be taken to RfD surprises me. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi

create Nyíregyháza metro thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levente 2 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That I was the one that nominated the article for deletion doesn't mean I'm the only one that can recreate it now that it's gone. You are allowed and indeed encouraged to create the article yourself when it's ready. For more information, go to the Wikipedia:Your first article page. If you run into any issues while writing the article, I'd be happy to help, but I won't write the entire thing for you. You can post the request at Wikipedia:Requested articles though, and perhaps someone else will. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]