Jump to content

User talk:Joseph2302

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kristuq (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 23 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PLEASE READ


If I have nominated your article for deletion (WP:AFD or WP:CSD), removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can leave me a note.
If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

If you fail to do these things, you won't necessarily get a proper reply.


If you've come to this page because you got a notification saying I'm patrolling your page, then it just means that I've checked your new page meets Wikipedia standards. If it didn't, then I will have tagged the problems on the article itself.

Help about archiving and Misza Bot III

Been helped now, my archiving works fine now

I've set up Misza Bot III to archive my messages, but the archived messages are not showing up on the archives section. Can someone please fix this for me or guide me on where I'm going wrong?

I give permission for people to edit the bots/archives on my talkpage, if they can fix my issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, the messages are being archived but they're not being put into the format that the {{archives}} template can currently read. I'll adjust the parameters and they should show up properly.
EDIT: I've added the correct parameters, however when it gets to 2016 you'll have to add a new line (just copy the "2015" line and change things to "2016"). This is because you have set it to archive by month, and for whatever reason the archives box cannot read that particular setup (even though it is one of two defaults). Primefac (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac:, thank you very much . Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmind Wiki

About page deletion/A7

Hi Joseph, Why is The page Fairmind not good? It is just a article about a social media network. There are a lot on Wikipedia look https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites If you find you are still right, ofcourse I delete the page ;)

Friendly regards

JohnCarpent123 11:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCarpent123:, for a company/organisation to have a Wikipedia article, they need to be considered notable, see WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. In particular, the article should have some claim of importance, and be supported by good reliable sources, for example information about them in newspaper articles/books/magazines. Just being a social network isn't enough notability to have a Wikipedia article.
Looking at [1], most of these companies meet the notability criteria, as they have been mentioned in technology articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for reverting Vandalism.  !dea4u  05:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block notes

Long Discussion about me being blocked/unblocked- whilst important, I'm hatting it because it's taking up too much space. In addition, I hatted discussion about incorrect CSD caused by my block.

Several incorrect script actions

Howdy, this is the third time I've had to revert an apparent mis-click with your scripted actions. What's going on? Nakon 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked until this can be explained. Nakon 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joseph2302 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Nakon: There's no problem with my account, I intentionally put Google and Facebook up for deletion, and claimed Kim Jung-Un was pregnant. They were intended as jokes, but clearly no-one found it funny- unfortunately I occasionally silly things, in between my thousands of good edits. Please can you unblock me so I can continue to make sensible edits? Joseph2302 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At best you shouldn't be unblocked because you don't seem to understand that those sorts of edits are inappropriate, and should stay blocked. At worst this is a compromised account, and should stay blocked. kelapstick(bainuu) 02:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

you did what?? you have been so good in so many ways. why would you do stupid things like that? i look for people i can trust at COIN. you need to give a way more serious answer than that. oh man. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Checkuser note: From a checkuser standpoint, this account does not appear to be compromised. However, there's the possibility that someone gained access to Joseph2302's computer or Joseph2302 performed these actions himself. Mike V • Talk 02:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Joseph2302 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for my ridiculous edits early this morning, they were completely stupid and unnecessary. I shouldn't have been editing Wikipedia at 2am when tired, as it leads to very bad decision-making- this is not an excuse, and in future I won't be editing when so tired, as it clearly compromises the quality of my decision-making. See for example my last unblock request, which was badly written and failed to address the issues properly. I know I've let a lot of people down, including myself and @Jytdog:, and I'm sorry. Also sorry to @Nakon: for having to clear up my mess, and @Mike V: for having to waste time Checkusering me, both of which wouldn't have been necessary if I hadn't been stupidly disruptive. With a few ridiculous edits, I've ruined the trust of many editors that I'd built up through thousands of good edits, and I realise this may casue semi-permanent trust issues with other users now. I realise that these edits were inappropriate, and I won't be doing them in future. I can confirm 100% that my account has not been compromised, no-one else in my house was even awake at that time, and I take full responsibility for my disruptive editing. If you look at my user contributions during this period, you will notice that there was a mixture of good and ridiculously bad edits, whereas a compromised account would only have made bad edits. Checkuser also suggests that my account has not been compromised, I don't know what more evidence I can give that my account has never been compromised, but it was me who made these dreadful edits. Please could someone remove the indef block for a compromised account, as my account is not compromised? I would understand if you wanted to impose a temporary block on me for disruptive editing instead, as this is what I'm actually guilty of. I'll definitely take this as a behavioural warning, and for a few days or so, I will engage only in uncontroversial edits, like working on articles on my watchlist. In particular, I want to work on improving my new article England at the Cricket World Cup, as some of the sections would benefit from rewriting and better sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the discussion below and Nakon's assent, I've unblocked you. Please remember that you are in a sort of probation, which you agreed to below - another one of these episodes and your account will be indefinitely blocked. Take a Wikibreak when you feel that coming! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I've seen good work from you - but there was that incident in February that got you a short block. Are you likely to go off the rails again? I'm not really expecting you to answer "Yes" to that - but I am wondering if there are reasons for it happening that you could address. There's only one way we can address things like this - and here we are. There are several possible reasons I can think of, but you must know the right one. I'm inclined to support an unblock, but with a warning that if it happens again, there would be no coming back, good contribs notwithstanding. So, are you sure that you can keep small relations (or so-called friends) out of your machine, or keep the lid on the bottle, or the weed in the packet? Or whatever it was that causes it? If you are given a fresh chance, don't blow it. Peridon (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First thing, all edits on this account are made by me. I only edit using my account on my laptop and phone, both of which no-one in the world has access to. Whenever I leave my laptop (even for just 30 seconds), I always shut my laptop lid, so no-one can do anything. Hence, all edits using this account are made by me, and I'm 100% directly responsible for them.
I acknowledge I've been disruptive twice now (in February with some test edits/vandalism, and some stupid edits this week), and these aren't acceptable, and should not be ignored (despite my thousands of good edits).
Think one of the main problems is spending too much time on Wiki sometimes, and especially dealing with user problems (COI/new users/new pages). Generally when I do too much editing in too short a time (i.e doing it on-off for about 12 hours in a day, as I did the other day), the quality of my edits/decision-making seems to decline, and both these disruptive streaks have come at the end of long editing sessions. If unblocked, I would make sure I edit Wikipedia in shorter bursts (i.e. not in 12 hour spells, and not longer than an hour or 2 at any one time), as this would help keep the good editing, and remove the unhelpful editing. Also, I won't edit when tired/ill etc.. as my edits are worse in these circumstances.
I am definitely willing to accept a conditional unblock, with @Peridon:'s suggestion of "any more disruption=indef block" seeming perfectly fair to me. It would give me no motivation to ever consider vandalising Wikipedia again, since I enjoy contributing Wikipedia lots, and so I would not risk losing that privilege forever. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think giving Joseph a last chance wouldn't hurt - @Nakon, is it fine by you? Max Semenik (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302, I'm surprised and saddened to see this. I look forward to when you can unconditionally guarantee that you will make only the responsible and helpful edits that I think of as typical of you. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxSem: Yes, this is OK. Nakon 20:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Phone post, I'll make a longer post in a few days when u have computer access again)

Thank you for unblocking me, I won't let you down. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for someone to edit my user page for me

Currently blocked, so can't change my user page, but please can someone make these changes to it for me: (1). Change my Wiki Switchbreak template, from {{WikibreakSwitch|Off}} to {{WikibreakSwitch|Off-On}}, as this is my editing availability currently if unblocked.
(2). Please remove the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} User box from my page, it's pretty clear I'm not admin material.
Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pishcal — ♣ 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of England at the Cricket World Cup

Mistaken CSD Nomination

Hello Joseph2302,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged England at the Cricket World Cup for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roshan014 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roshan014:, I wasn't blocked when I created this article, there was no sockpuppetry involved. The article is completely legitimate under Wikipedia article policy, as it was created before my block. surely it shouldn't be deleted because I'm now blocked? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help withEngland at the Cricket World Cup

I ccreated the England at the Cricket World Cup page. As I'm now blocked, someone has marked it for deletion as sockpuppetry /block evasion, however it was created before my block, so the article is legitimate. As I'm blocked, I cannot contest this at the article talk page like I usually would. Please can someone help this article not get deleted? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is fixed; an editor mis-read the CSD criteria. Kuru (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 April

Syntax mistake, now fixed

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You reverted the obscene attacks against my userspace while I was offline, and I greatly appreciate that. It truly is a good thing you were there. So here is a Barnstar for your diligent efforts. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye:, glad I could help, their edits to your user page (and later mine), and other pages were clearly inappropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can RENEE rochelle be moved to draft vs delete???

Can RENEE rochelle be moved to draft vs deletion???? 2602:306:3419:DBD0:F07A:9F69:1A0F:88A4 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please move to draft so that I can continue working on Renee Rochelle thank you 🏢2602:306:3419:DBD0:F07A:9F69:1A0F:88A4 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the user who put it up for deletion if it's okay to move it to draftspace instead, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Rochelle. If they're okay with it, then I'll do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this happens, I would strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article- in particular, you would need independent reliable sources to show that Renee Rochelle is notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Nairobi Adams: so you are also aware of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Renee Rochelle has been moved to Draft:Renee Rochelle. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wanting to delete this? It has no copy right information. It is not promoting any business and there is valid information. Kristuq (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joseph2302&oldid=658821492"