User talk:Xtremeroller

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Your GA nomination of Norman Osborn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Norman Osborn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Norman Osborn

The article Norman Osborn you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Norman Osborn 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 Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it right now

I'm working on List of DC Comics films right nowOscarFercho (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing for Norman Osborn

Hello, Xtremeroller. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Norman Osborn at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! NinjaDuckie (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man

I understand you've only bee on Wikipedia since May, so you might not be aware of the protocol WP:BRD, which says that once reverted, we go to the tarticle's talk page and try to reach consensus with other editors. By reverting, you are edit-warring. Your edit was changed since it was uncited WP:POV. There are no independent journalistic/academic sources that claim Spider-Man has had formal partners, a la Batman and Robin or Power Man and Iron Fist. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Norman Osborn

The article Norman Osborn you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Norman Osborn for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE request for Norman Osborn

Hi Xtremeroller, I just wanted to let you know that the GOCE requests page has a one-month backlog right now, so we'd have to skip a number of articles to get to Norman Osborn by the weekend. You might get a kind volunteer to jump ahead to your article, but the tasks you want done will take time and some amount of subject knowledge. If you were to do those tasks yourself (and I think you would be the one best suited to do so), I would be willing to give the article a once-over given a day's notice. Tdslk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Stewart

Please see discussion at the Talk page of Jon Stewart. Keizers (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

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:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Alex Shih ^Talk 08:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I just want to say I am sorry for past accounts. Ever since I created this one three months ago, I pledged to stay out of trouble and help out my fellow editors. My one goal for this site has always been to make article good, I have tried over the years but never works out. But most recently I did, Norman Osborn was my first Good Article, I was so proud that my hard work paid off for that page. I recently wrote on the Batman talk page to get others' attention to help get it promoted back to Featured Artcile status. Just a day ago, I got my pending change review, other editors have seen my actions and take responsibility as my role. I have worked well with others on articles like the Osborn page. I haven't done things that are illegitimate on articles for specific gains. This account was more of a clean start. I was proud to work with others and a thrill to see a page get promoted to Good article status. Thank you for your understanding. Xtremeroller (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As this is a block-evading account, not eligible for unblock consideration here. Note that you would be eligible for unblock consideration six months from today, so long as you stay away. Yamla (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2017 (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 should seriously consider the standard offer. If you can completely stay away from Wikipedia for six months (no new accounts, no logged-out edits) and then come back with a sincere unblock request that includes the work you did with this account, there is a chance you will be unblocked. Otherwise you, as well as admins and checkusers, will continue to play out the same tired scenario.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If I agree, may I contact you again here after 6 months and continue to use this account? Xtremeroller (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the six months just post a new unblock request here and ask an admin to copy it to WP:AN for you for community review. Make sure to specify that you would prefer to have this username unblocked to use should the unblock be granted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are not blocked on other projects, you may want to consider editing other Wikimedia projects during the six months in order to further demonstrate that you can edit constructively and collaboratively.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, see you all next year. Xtremeroller (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Norman Osborn

Norman Osborn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]