User talk:WikiEditCrunch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, WikiEditCrunch, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Steve Wozniak seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{Help me}} on your talk page here, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! bojo1498 talk 15:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Sorry.I must have messed something up with the Wozniak edit. Anyway.Thanks for the welcome Bojo14998!

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

TNO list article FYI[edit]

I just created List of Trans-Neptunian Objects and charged the Astronomy people to add refs and more content. Astronomy is not my area. Thanks for patrolling it. - Denimadept (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

Uh oh. Looks like there's already a List of trans-Neptunian objects article. gah. - Denimadept (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh.I just checked and it was put up for deletion. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

Yeah, I did that. Someone suggested making it a redirect to the existing article, so I did that. - Denimadept (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

2011-12 National League 2 North[edit]

Thanks for the positive review. All the best. (Jgjsmith006) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

Serneholt[edit]

If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ill see what I can doWikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

Samsung Galaxy J7[edit]

naveencm: what is the problems of the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveencm (talkcontribs) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for editing your article.It doesnt curently have a problem.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

Declined speedy deletion nominations[edit]

I have had cause to decline your nominations of Main Rooh-he and The Spit (South Shetland Islands) because both fell outside the A7 criteria. Speedy deletion criteria are strictly applied. Before making further nominations please familiarise yourself with WP:A7. Thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

Garry Ringrose[edit]

Hi. I have removed the RefImprove template that you added to this article because I do not think it conforms with the template's usage guidance. I accept that this is a stub article, but the references are all reliable and support all the information in the article. Let me know if you think I have missed something, and I will happily try to fix it. Best wishes, Lions of Inquiry (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OkWikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC


Advice[edit]

You seem to have marked Udmurt cuisine for proposed deletion as an uncited BLP. Obviously this is not a BLP, so I suppose you accidentally selected the wrong template. Butyou;re supposed to give a reason for prods.

In general, too many of you deletion nominations are being rejected. It's very important not to mark fixable articles for deleion,a nd especially not to mark them via the wrong reasons--it discourages and confuses the beginners. Please pause in making further deletion nominations until you have carefully read (or re-read) all of WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD. Even when not marking for deletion, it's also important to tag correctly: you tagged [[]] as "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.". But it is an article about a musical group, and that tag is not the appropriate one, especially as you had already added a tag saying it needed additional references. I have additionally tagged for either speedy deletion or afd a number of article you have reviewed without noticing the problems.

Perhaps you should get some more experience actually writing articles before you review the work of others. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Rawtekk CSD declined[edit]

Hello,

Just to let you know, I removed the CSD tag from Rawtekk because I feel that it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion under A7. The article contains two arguable claims of significance. I'm not at all sure it would survive an AfD in its present state, but I think it might have a chance if it can be further sourced, as seems likely.

Thparkth (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


Ok. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

November 2015[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from John Hughes (filmmaker). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Diary of a Kid (series), WikiEditCrunch.

Unfortunately MrX has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The article should not have been marked as reviewed. It has no sources, no evidence of notability, and violates WP:CRYSTAL.

To reply, leave a comment on MrX's talk page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, WikiEditCrunch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Declined speedy[edit]

Hello, and thanks for your interest in speedy deletion. I declined your nomination of Ketaki Dutta because the article did not meet any of the very narrow criteria for speedy deletion, including A7. There are other options available, but in this case, it seems obvious to me that the subject is in fact notable.

Regards, decltype (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Content (Joywave album)[edit]

The AFD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content (Joywave album) was not "withdrawn". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The AFD nomination has been withdrawn.Look again. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - Maybe closed as keep, but I think only I can withdraw that nomination. Others can close as keep, or even snow keep, which is not needed after one week. If so, which comment says that it was withdrawn? Also, "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping}}), so I will be notified." --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jax 0677:The result was clearly keep and it has been more than 7 days so the discussion has been closed. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you amend your close, and WP:STRIKE the "nomination withdrawn" part? For accurate record-keeping's sake? Obviously closing it as "Keep" is the only logical close possible given that discussion, but the nomination fundamentally was not "withdrawn". A separate editor requested it be withdrawn, sure, but that request wasn't honored. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:Alright. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I hadn't looked at the entire discussion until just now, but looking at it, you're not supposed to close AFDs that you participated in. You need to do either one or the other, not both. You may want to think about undoing the close altogether, or you'll likely catch some heat for this. (And even if you don't, for future's reference, you'd be in a world of trouble if you had done this on an AFD that was a closer call with split opinions. Definitely don't do that.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC )

@Sergecross73:I actually just summed up the discussion, not take part in it.But to be sure I removed my comment in the discussion. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Festivals[edit]

The actual cleanup after a blocked user's festivalisation of wikipedia - is a long drawn out sporadic irregular activity - hence my reverting - the actual talk page may not be actually very active - but the slow cleanup is a sign there is something happening. - cheers JarrahTree 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Alright thanks for correcting that. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The Ocean (Mike Perry song)[edit]

The German airplay charts that were on Wikipedia were mainly added by one editor, and most were reverted by other music editors for being of questionable relevance (hence my edit summary on that particular page) because of its status as a component chart. However, my main concern was that the airplay chart is not the official one of Germany and appears to be a random company Hung Medien (who runs the -charts.com series of sites) has chosen to republish data from (MusicTrace, which has a series of sites that look like blogs from the early 2000s). It's not the official chart of Germany, as it's not published by GfK Entertainment Charts, who publishes the current official series of charts. The chart seems to have had a huge turnover of number-one songs and I think most editors find this addition of random airplay data is meaningless. Ss112 12:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright sure.Thanks for explaning that.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removing ref improv templates & adding non-RS by User:WikiEditCrunch[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ojorojo (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates[edit]

This isn't a huge big deal; however, you made a change to the lead at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates that was correct American grammar to correct British grammar, and changes from American to British or from one form of English to another is covered by our Manual of Style guideline, specifically MOS:RETAIN. Should also note that your change was also to incorrect American English grammar, because in American English, "group" is singular and requires the singular verb phrase "has formed". Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll join your new project[edit]

...but I don't a thing about investments. Barbara (WVS)   00:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Thats alright I guess haha. here is the userbox by the way.Welcome! {{User investment}} WikiEditCrunch (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Nakon 19:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Investment[edit]

Thanks for the invite but I'm busy enough with real life / what I do here - good luck with it all though! GiantSnowman 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks!

Cheers mate. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam War nominations[edit]

WikiEditCrunch, you nominated this article to be a GA earlier this month; it was given a speedy fail on August 21, and you opened a reassessment on August 23 but didn't fill in the reassessment form. I thought I'd let you know about the various processes involved, and why things happened the way they did.

First, according to the GA nomination instructions, if you haven't made any significant contributions to the article, before you nominate it for GA status, you are supposed to check with the major contributors to see whether they think it's ready for nomination before nominating. Generally, that involves a post on the article's talk page asking for their thoughts, with at least seven days allowed for responses to be made. You didn't do that, which was alluded to in the GA review.

Second, while the article has a large number of inline sources, there are a significant number of paragraphs, sometimes more than one in a row, that are unsourced; many of these contain information that absolutely requires sourcing, starting in the "Ousting and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm" section and continuing through the rest of the article; this is also true for the ends of paragraphs, where potentially controversial statements of fact are made and need to be backed up. (The "Final North Vietnamese offensive" subsection is completely unsourced, and the following "Fall of Saigon" section has a single source in four paragraphs.)

There are other issues as well: for example, the lead section (MOS:LEAD is part of the first of the GA criteria) is six paragraphs; the maximum is should be four.

Because it is so clear that the article does not, at the present time, meet the GA criteria, a reassessment (which would take at least a month and probably longer) does not make sense. The article still requires significant work to add appropriate source citations before it stands a chance of passage. I'll be nominating the not-yet-filled-out reassessment page for a speedy deletion, and removing the request for a reassessment from the article talk page. The best thing to do if you would like this to become a GA is to improve the article sourcing and only then renominate it. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)#

@BlueMoonset: Alright.Thank you!

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Doors[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Doors you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Doors[edit]

The article The Doors you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:The Doors for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

TD Bank[edit]

Hey, you reverted by tags on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto-Dominion_Bank . That page is biased. Here's why: its missing a lot of lawsuits. Even the fact that the "controversies" section is called "controversies" suggests that someone from PR already came by and re-wrote the page. For it to be a neutral page, it needs to be updated on all legal actions against the company as well as all bad press it has received.CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


@CerealKillerYum: It is certainly not biased.Then rename the section to "Criticism". Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, WikiEditCrunch. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Definitely Maybe[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Definitely Maybe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Basilisk4u -- Basilisk4u (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with article review?[edit]

Hi,

I've noticed you restarted the Wikipedia Project Investment. I've written a draft article about a prominent VC, User:BC1278/sandbox/Mo_Koyfmanand I wonder if you might have time to review it? I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, and have created many articles, but I have a COI here as a paid consultant to the subject. So, as per WP: COI, all my work must be thoroughly reviewed and brought live by an independent editor.

I am more than willing to do as much additional work on the draft as you think is required.

Thanks for considering this request!

Ed BC1278 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278



@BC1278: Hi Ed,

first of all I would like to apologize for my rather late response as I have been quite busy outside of Wikipedia.

Im going to read the draft you created and will get back to you soon with a response. Let me know if I can edit the draft if I find something to be added/changed.

Cheers mate WikiEditCrunch (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WikiEditCrunch. It's perfectly OK with me if you directly edit the draft. The only thing I still may want to do, as of right now, is combine the list of investments and boards of directors. I'm just checking if there is complete overlap.

I think we should move our substantive discussions to the Talk page of the draft article, to document that an independent editor is doing a review. You'll see there are many sources and in a bunch, he's just quoted as an investor or board member. With these, I'm relying on WP: BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."

Thanks so much for your time! I really appreciate it. Ed BC1278 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278.

@WikiEditCrunch: still think you might still have time to do an independent review of User:BC1278/sandbox/Mo_Koyfman? If you're buried in other stuff, I certainly understand! Cheers, EdBC1278 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: So I read the article and it was good. I edited to small parts of the article but otherwise its the same as before.

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Definitely Maybe[edit]

The article Definitely Maybe you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Definitely Maybe for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Basilisk4u -- Basilisk4u (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

=

Disambiguation link notification for June 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cambridge Investment Research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked this account indefinitely as your refusal to answer the concerns raised in the AN/I thread ([1]) while labeling the notification to the thread as "spam" ([2]) made it clear to me that you do not possess the competency to edit the English Wikipedia, especially when taking the editing history of this account into consideration. You may appeal this decision by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Hi WikiEditCrunch. This is unfortunately not going to be a suitable unblock request. Please see the guide to appealing blocks and submit a new unblock request using {{unblock}}. Swarm 17:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And please stop using UTRS. You have already been told once to deal with this here, and the process is not going to be instantaneous. Swarm 17:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I understand. Thanks for letting me know.Ill rewrite WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WikiEditCrunch (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I have been told to post my unblock request here: My case was discussed (largely without me) in the ANI. I would like to apologize for any misunderstanding there has been on my case. Despite arguments against me I was not given time to make my case. The user I have been desputing with has a history with disruption on Wikipedia, but I made my mistakes. I firmly believe that I should be unblocked, because I have apologized and am willing and able to address the issues. More on the issue: I was willing to address the issue by asking how it could be resolved. I got involved in a editing conflict acted uncarefully.Also I took a draft without issuing who it belonged to. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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.


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WikiEditCrunch (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

(The above given tex is from the administrator TonyBallioni)

I'll start with the first point.First of all (and maybe most importantly) I am not a "vandal".I make edits, small and large ones, but I certainly do not go around editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" (see Wikipedia:Vandalism), even if some have tried to portray me as such. Most of my edits are not even subject to review as they are often "factual" out of date earnings and other financial data.I also am active in a number of projects.

On to the other point and its sub-points.

I have been blocked, because:(Wikipedia:Competence is required: Refusing to address concerns about disruptive editing behaviour at WP:ANI; long term problematic editing and CIR issues) Surely I understand that my conflict is the reason why I have been blocked.Also perhaps the missing competence (I suppose the administrator meant that). Despite that I did actually try to address concerns about the disruptive editing by asking how the matter could be resolved here [3].

As earlier stated I mainly make smaller edits, but I have done those over a broad range of subjects.I hope to further do this. Perhaps I could discuss this matter with the user I have been in conflict in,Jytdog, after this and try to end it.

Thanks for your time.

Cheers!

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is woefully inadequate. I suggest you re-read the ANI thread, and then post something constructive. At the moment you are still not acknowledging the depth of your incompetence, and hence I am declining this request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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.


@PhilKnight: Well the administrator was quite vague (To be honest).I asked how the matter could be resolved and got blocked instead.

That was kinda quick and well made me feel like what is described here (Perhaps I did deserve it but still was kinda fast) I have read the ANI at least three times by now and do have understood my wrongdoing. I have tried to write others here but mostly I have not gotten any answers which does not help much either.

If others are busy or else I accept that.Can you then at least tell me what you mean with the depth of my incompetence?

From what I understand: -I stole a draft - I agree that is pretty unwise and is a definite sign of my incompetence. -The violation of Wikipedia:POINT. I am definitely not someone who wants to get a point across here.Still the litte struggle on the article did make it seem so and I agree that is the case

and

- The edit war:People get into these all the time.I try to circumvent this by not getting into them in the first place.Still it happened and I apologize(-ed - in the ANI) for my wrongdoing(-s).


To summarize: Yes I do fully understand my incompetence in this particular incident.

Hope this clarifies. I will wait until I get a response before I post another unblocking request.

Thanks and cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi WikiEditCrunch, that's an improvement. I suggest you post another unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright Ill do that.Thanks again. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WikiEditCrunch (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Before I wrote this I once again read the ANi and this thread and have come to the conclusion, that I accept my misconduct and am ready to continue working on them (I have already started by reading some Wikipedia essays and guidelines) There are indeed certain procedures on Wikipedia which were in need of a deeper understanding, something I believe to have attained now. The events that ended in me being blocked all happened in quite a short time span, but they can best be described as very unwise (on my part) and hasty.The reason for my block was a lack of competence and problems adressing these issues, rightfully put so. I promise from refrain from such editing behaviour. I discussed the reasons for my block before with another administrator in the thread and fully understand them now. So to conclude: I have dealt with my errors and hope to further contribute to Wikipedia without repeating these. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have extensively reviewed your history. There have been many problems for a long time, and your statement "The events that ended in me being blocked all happened in quite a short time span" does not seem to be well-founded. Concerns about your editing have been raised a number of times, and you have a history of contemptuously dismissed such concerns, rather than addressing them. When you have apparently responded to concerns, at times you have shown no understanding of those concerns, and at times you have been disingenuous, as for example when you have agreed not to do something and then very shortly afterwards done it. Rarely if ever have you genuinely both understood concerns and acted on them. Turning from your history to responses to this block, I see very vague statements that you understand what the problems were and will improve, but you do not actually say what you understand to be the problems, or how your future editing will be different from what you have done before. Experience over the years shows that editors who vaguely say "I understand what I did wrong and won't do it again" without being specific about what they think they have done wrong and won't do again in fact don't understand, and will do it again. In your case, concern that things may go that way are even greater than usual, because of your history of saying such things and then not changing your behaviour. You need to demonstrate that you understand, not just say that you do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

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.


@JamesBWatson: @PhilKnight: @Alex Shih: When I wrote "The events that ended in me being blocked all happened in quite a short time span" I meant the events leading up to this particular block to make myself clear (Eventhough my past conduct is related).

How am I supposed to demonstrate that I understand the issues in my situation?Its not like I can do anything (except write here of course).

Ill be a little more precise: This is now the second time I have had my request denied after waiting over a week, only to be told what I already know:That I need to show that I understand my issues (Although I have failed to do so). From my perspective all I can do is look at them,read the related Wikipedia guidelines and try to explain that I have understood them in relation to my past misconducts.I tried to do so by writing another administrator.

Logically, since I cannot edit any other pages (for example), I cannot practically show you that I really understand them.Get my dilemma?


To summarize:Since my previous attempts to clarify myself have failed,I need to know more precisely how I am supposed to demonstrate that I understand my issues.

Thanks.

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. What I meant by demonstrating that you understand what the problems are is that you should tell us what those problems are, rather than just telling us that you understand what they are, but not telling us what you understand that they are.
  2. Luckily I came back to check this page and so I saw your latest messages. However, the {{reply to}} template doesn't notify an editor unless in the same edit you include ~~~~ to sign your post. Posting a message with your signature and then coming back and in a separate edit adding {{reply to}} doesn't work, so PhilKnight and Alex Shih won't have got your pings. If you still want to notify them you will need to do it again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


@JamesBWatson:@PhilKnight:

Alright so by my understanding I should tell you the violations and then describe what went wrong.
                        I wrote this to another admin before posting my latest request:
                        "From what I understand:

-I stole a draft - I agree that is pretty unwise and is a definite sign of my incompetence. -The violation of Wikipedia:POINT. I am definitely not someone who wants to get a point across here.Still the litte struggle on the article did make it seem so and I agree that is the case

and

- The edit war:People get into these all the time.I try to circumvent this by not getting into them in the first place.Still it happened and I apologize(-ed - in the ANI) for my wrongdoing(-s)."

It is a bit short but I was trying to be brief.

I also came to find, that I had many "loopholes" in terms of my lack of knowledge of many policies and have been "freshing up" on those, partiularly those that led to the block.

Is the content from the previous message where I described the aspects of my misconduct adequate or too short and not demonstrative?

Thanks. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(The reply to this message can be found under the "Reply" section.)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WikiEditCrunch (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I have concluded a few more points after looking into my block: My violation of CIR was my lack of communication and also not understanding the Wikipedia:Attribution.I have come to understand, that it is important to give people credit for their contributions. I believe that communication is necessary here (if not vital), as it is important to reach concensus to improve articles and one must also be able to trust others. I promise to not to repeat such behaviour. Although I did ask how to resolve the issue in the ANI, I did not do receive a reply and since I did not give an explanation on my violations, I was blocked.This was a mistake on my behalf as I did not address concers in a timely manner. Wikipedia is also not for expressing opinions or a simple "speakers corner" and I vow to make no further edits that violate Wiki:POINT. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

@Yamla:

Could you tell me what exactly makes the request not sufficiently convincing?

Thanks

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I can not. All I can say is that you got no response to your unblock request for at least two weeks, thus nobody who reviewed your request felt sufficiently convinced (one way or another) to act on it. I was not one of those reviewing admins, however, as I had previously reviewed another unblock request of yours. --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yamla:
Should I post another request or ask other administrators about the flaws of the appeal?
Thanks
WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, you can't see who reviewed your request and decided not to act, so I suggest posting a new unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

@JamesBWatson: @PhilKnight: It seems as if my reply has once again not worked (or I am wrong and you guys might be busy).

You can find my latest reply under JamesBWatson´s last one.

Besides that, I would like to note that my editing history has been questioned as part of this block.The blocking editor has every right to do so and my past misconduct has a connection to this one I can admit, but I have been surprised that no even once the editing history of the user I had been in conflict with has been called upon his history, despite that I have found not only their behaviours in conflicts, but also their block log somewhat dubious.

Why has this not even once been brought up?

Thank you. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Once an administrator has declined an unblock request, he or she does not normally review another one for the same block. Instead, it is left for another administrator, so that the blocked editor gets an independent review by someone with no previous involvement. Seeing the comments you had posted above, I thought you seemed to have misunderstood one of the things I said in my message declining an earlier unblock request, so I posted a note clarifying it (or at least attempting to). However, I don't intend to re-assess your unblock request, and if you still wish to be unblocked you should post a new unblock request, so that another administrator can review it.
  • Despite that, there are two small points arising from what you have said above that I shall mention, but other than those points I have nothing to add to what I have already said about your unblock requests.
  • Did you take the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting your unblock requests? If you did you will have known that complaining about other editors will not help any unblock request. I have not looked at the involvement of the other editor you mention, because what he or she did is irrelevant to the reasons for your block, which are concerned purely with what you have done. He or she may or may not also have edited in unacceptable ways, but either way it does not either validate or invalidate the reasons for your block.
  • Referring to edit-wars, you say "People get into these all the time". A much more accurate statement is "some people get into these all the time". Those people get blocked for edit-warring, and the far larger number of people who don't get into them don't get blocked for edit-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


I did read the guide to appealing blocks.Also I was just curious why my history was taken accounted for and theirs not. Also yeah I agree that statement is more precise.

Thanks for the advice by the way.

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to handle the unblock request, as I've had to deal with WikiEditCrunch before, but I have one question - can you now see how disruptive it was to create Talk:The Doors/GA1 (amongst other drive by GA nominations) without having made any attempt to improve the article to the required standard? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


@Ritchie333: Sure.Not having made any improvments on it, it wasnt like I could have really made a impact on its standards.It was probably a waste of time for the reviewer so sorry about that.Although I have been planning on editing those.
Kind Regards WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)