An article you recently created, Mike Clay, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pamzeis (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JackSucksAtLife until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. sam1370 (talk · contribs)03:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ChukaChieftalk16:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Mike Clay, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Praxidicae (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Victor Schmidt was:
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rich Smith was:
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, President-Wiki-Man!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! - RichT|C|E-Mail19:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Nathan2055 were:
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:President-Wiki-Man/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello, President-Wiki-Man. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
If you want to tag pages for speedy deletion, please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion so that you understand what the accepted criteria are, what name spaces they apply to and when it would be more appropriate to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. You can't just come up with your own reasons of why a page should be deleted, you need to use one of the valid, agreed-upon criteria. It helps if you make use of Twinkle which will offer you possible options. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!05:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 2018 Gay Games requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.akroncantonairport.com/home/your-visit/arts-in-the-airport/tree-of-life/tree-of-life-leaf/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969TT me15:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, 2018 Gay Games, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969TT me02:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ingenuity were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2018 Gay Games and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2018 Gay Games, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eviolite was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:American Samoa Democratic Party and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:American Samoa Democratic Party, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
You need independent sources, not affiliated with the Gay Games. Look at the previous year's article for a good example.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2018 Gay Games and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2018 Gay Games, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
An article you recently created, Lucky Duck, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BOVINEBOY200818:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at American Samoa Democratic Party instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:American Samoa Democratic Party and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:American Samoa Democratic Party, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lucky Duck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lucky Duck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
An article you recently created, Skysuites @ Anson, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MB03:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, President-Wiki-Man. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2018 Gay Games, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello President-Wiki-Man. Thank you sincerely for offering to serve as an administrator. Unfortunately, I have closed your request for adminship (RfA) early because it became clear that it would not succeed. Although the English Wikipedia has no technical minimum requirements for adminship beyond merely having a registered account, editors generally need to have considerable amount of editing experience in order to be successful at RfA. For more advice, please check out WP:NOTNOW and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. I hope this experience was not too discouraging. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add on here. I really like your enthusiasm. It does take awhile to get familiar with the sides of Wikipedia that happen behind the article-writing. Many of the comments on your recent RFA mentioned your overall edit count and your Wikipedia namespace edit count. The latter refers to pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and others that begin with "Wikipedia:". These pages, like standard articles, also have their associated talk pages, known as the Wikipedia Talk namespace. These are some of the things you'd want to familiarize yourself with before your next request for adminship. I have much lower edit count standards than most Wikipedians - you can see them here, unchanged since 2009 - at about 500 Wikipedia namespace edits, 1000 article (mainspace) edits, and 2000 total edits. For most people, those numbers will probably be less than half of what they want to see, just so you are aware of what you're up against, for lack of a better word. I'm telling you this just to set expectations so you don't run another request for adminship very soon and get immediately shot down again, because that can be demoralizing. Anyway, what I'm suggesting is to get involved in the Wikipedia namespace. Take it slow, though. Observe what other people are doing. If you see people vandalizing, report them to WP:AIV. If you see inappropriate usernames, report them to WP:UAA. And so on. Basically, determine which administrative tasks are the ones you'd most like to be involved with in an administrative capacity and start participating in a non-administrative capacity. Feel free to shoot questions over to me at any time. Useight (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Questions regarding other accounts
You have stated that Dugwiki was another account of yours, and that you also have other accounts. Please give direct and honest answers to the following two questions.
Yes, it was my account. I have edited on Dugwiki since I believe 2009 and Imre Solt since 2007, but I have been editing on my current account since 2020, sorry for the confusion.
Imre Solt was my Wikimedia Commons account about a decade ago and I have been getting my Masters in America so I have been on a Wiki Break.
I like to call this account my talk page because I kind of abandoned it and I mostly edited talk pages but it never really went anywhere so I found it easier to just do page and talk edits on my Dugwiki account. President-Wiki-Man (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand this; how can you have edited talk pages with the Dugwiki account if you lost access to it? Also: the Imre Solt page you've linked isn't an account, it's a profile of sorts. It hasn't made edits, because it isn't an account. Vanamonde (Talk)23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you even want to use a different account for talk page engagement? If you are using a watchlist on one account, then you would sign out from one and then in on another to engage on talk? How would you expect people to connect your article space edits with the seeking of consensus or discussion of policy on talk? How is this in confirmation with the legitimate use of socks? Do you still do this with multiple accounts or logged-out editing? - CorbieVreccan☊☼18:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user just applied for an increase in user privileges (Pending changes reviewer). They were turned down for all the reasons.[1] They immediately applied again with their new name.[2]
As they started a new section with the new name, I think it's reasonable to consider they were being deceptive about their history. Whether this was premeditated deception or just inappropriate boundary violation, it's disruptive editing. - CorbieVreccan☊☼18:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may apply after 90 days. But applying more than once in more than one permission is a sign of disruptive editing, as CorbieVreccan stated above. Sarrail (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop doing weird things. Be completely open and transparent. Answer questions directly and honestly. Stop violating policy. Act like a responsible Wikipedian for a solid stretch of time. If you do these things, people will might start to see you differently. - CorbieVreccan☊☼18:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would add; show a sustained commitment to working on content. That's why most of us are here, and if it's not why you are here, it's very unlikely you'll ever gain the trust for additional permissions. Vanamonde (Talk)19:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Vanamonde. And seeing how things continue to develop... I am not so sure this person should be allowed editing access at all. Reading all the deception below... There's just too much going on here to not consider a block. - CorbieVreccan☊☼19:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CorbieVreccan, I've been mulling a NOTHERE block, but I'd like to give them a chance to going back to doing what they were doing, which did appear to be in good faith. I'm baffled by their switch from making unspectacular, but not terrible, content edits to blundering about in WP-space, that began with their RFA. DWM, I would like to repeat my advice to work on content, and not worry about anything else. Vanamonde (Talk)20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 On the one hand, a wait and see has seemed best, as my gut feeling is that they will sock as soon as they are blocked. At the same time, lying on their RfA, claiming other accounts were theirs, doesn't seem like something we should let slide. - CorbieVreccan☊☼20:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a preventative indefinite block is called for until the editor addresses and resolves satisfactorily the issues raised in this section. WP:AGF can only go so far. Jusdafax (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I thank you for admitting you lied, this is still not good. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not becoming "popular", not gaining access to powers that you believe will give you the ability to do... whatever it is you seem to think the extra privileges and buttons will allow you to do. I am concerned about just what it is you think you would be able to do with this access, and why you want it. All in all, I am coming more and more to agree with what others have already said below: I don't think you understand what this site is about, and I don't think you are here for the right reasons. Feel free to prove me wrong, but right now, I just don't see it. I think you need to find a different hobby. - CorbieVreccan☊☼22:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dugwiki was not an account of yours. That was obvious before I asked the question, but I decided to give you a chance to come clean about it. Instead, you decided to double down on your lies. That Dugwiki was not an account of yours is clear for several reasons. The most obvious one, which must be blindingly obvious to anyone with a significant amount of experience of Wikipedia editors who spends a minute looking at the contributions of the two accounts, is that the user of that account largely knew what they were doing, and you don't. Other things which you have said, both on this page and elsewhere, about your supposed other accounts are likewise blatantly obvious lies. Add to this your outright vandalism on the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DanCherek, and various other problems, some of them already mentioned on this page, and you are dangerously well on the way to looking as though your effect on Wikipedia is not, on balance, helpful. I suggest that you stop lying, stop trying to get yourself various user rights, and either settle down to trying to contribute to the encyclopaedia, or else just leave Wikipedia and find something else to do. If you don't take one of those two options voluntarily you may find the decision will be taken out of your hands, and the second one imposed on you by an administrator. JBW (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the contributions of Dugwiki, JBW. My impression yesterday was that Dugwiki was clearly more comfortable contributing in English, but I hadn't the time to investigate in detail, and I didn't want to make such an accusation without more evidence. I'd be interested to see what Darth-Wiki-Man has to say to this. Vanamonde (Talk)21:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also skeptical if you are actually Imre Solt/c:User:LoverOfDubai as well. The Imre Solt from the Commons profile appears to be this chap, and the same circumstances noted above with the Dugwiki account seem to apply. Based both on Imre Solt's website and LoverOfDubai's edits on Commons, they are both capable of explaining their logic thoroughly and clearly competently, which you have yet been completely unable to do. Examples include this upload on Commons and the articles on Solt's website. This is countered by your statements "I will never give up!" and "Ever since I joined Wikipedia I have dreamed of becoming an administrator. Every edit I make and ever article I publish I gain experience and it brings me closer to this moment.", which strike me in complete whiplash. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noodle Factory (AI company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
To be honest, I'm on the verge of nominating this at WP:AFD. I've done an indepth analysis of the sources, as well as searched for other sources on this company, and this article fails our notability guideline for companies WP:NCORP. None of the sources currently in the article meet WP:SIRS, and no other sources appear to exist that provide WP:SIGCOV of the company.
However. Two or three of the sources (citations 3, 4, and 6) could potentially demonstrate SIGCOV towards the website, and as such it could possibly meet the notability guideline for websites WP:NWEB, if you were to refactor it to be an article about the website. But even then, it's not a solid foundation notability wise and as no other sources appear to exist that would satisfy SIGCOV for the website, I would be concerned that the article would still be deleted at AFD.
If you were to refactor this article as one about the website, and not the company, are there any other sources that discuss the website in depth (at least 100 words in length) that you are aware of? Note these sources must meet our criteria as being a reliable source, which you can verify by checking at WP:RSP, or searching the WP:RSN archives, or because this is arguably a web game consulting WP:VG/S. The sources must also be independent from the site itself (so no paid promotions or press releases), and independent from each other (so multiple articles from the same source or author only count as one). Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: I was reviewing this article during NPP and echo Sideswipe9th's analysis on the borderline notability. This obviously fails WP:NCORP, which has more stringent guidelines than WP:NWEB. I share concerns with the reliability of some of these sources. Firstly, Darth-Wiki-Man, surely you are aware of this by now that popularity is not synonymous with notability. Lots of YouTube channels has millions of subscribers but are deleted in AfDs, due to that the usual guideline of multiple independent, reliable, significant, and usually secondary sources are failed. The about page of ref 2 looks very amateurish IMO, with random graphics and sentences not even ending in proper full stops. I guess Tech Learning might be WP:RS, it has decent about us page even though editorial policies is lacking. This site also has decent policies, 1, 2, and is probably RS. In contrast, this is an amateur passion project of 10 people, so not reliable. My WP:BEFORE search found a short, probably non-reliable review here, but there's also one ref from Common Sense Media, generally reliable on the perennial sources list WP:RSP, see the review, but is biased and opinionated. Therefore, I feel a bit uncomfortable in marking this as reviewed as well, Sideswipe9th and Bungle (who PRODed it), I'd be interested to hear your opinion on notability. Thanks! VickKiang(talk)00:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see no evidence sadly that this meets WP:NWEB's awards criteria: The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. Thanks! VickKiang(talk)00:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've also not seen any examples of the website winning an award that would meet the awards criteria. At best this could meet NWEB's primary criteria via secondary sources, but even that is I think shaky. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang I think you've covered most of my concerns. I've got a source assess table over in my sandbox that I'd prepared for an AfD.
I share your concerns over ref 2, while it claims to be a "news and article publishing portal" all of the articles I spot checked ended with comments like "That's all in this blog". Ref 3 (Tech & Learning) and 4 (Lee Daily) I think are RS, but don't contain sufficient content about the company to meet SIGCOV. They do meet WP:WEBCRIT point 1, if this was to be an article on the website, as there is non-trivial content about the site itself in there. Cite 6 (The Lost Gamer) was one I wasn't sure about. In their about us page they state that they were formerly known as Gamestyle, which was listed on WP:VG/S as inconclusive. I didn't see any editorial or fact checking policy, so I couldn't quickly assess if it met the main RS criteria. As with ref 3 and 4, there was potentially sufficient content towards the end of the article which would meet NWEB via WEBCRIT#1 if it is RS, but it's otherwise a marginal source. I probably wouldn't have an issue including cite 6 as an attributed review, but would definitely err on the side of caution as to whether or not it meets GNG.
Of the two sources you've found, pretty sure TeachersFirst is unreliable. It looks like a user submitted review or more likely something submitted by Blooket themselves. The Common Sense source is not Common Sense Media, it's Common Sense Education. I don't know if the bias from Common Sense Media is repeated in their education content, but it's possible. The review was carried out by one of their staff contributors, and on a skim read there's nothing that immediately jumps out as concerning. It could go to potentially go to demonstrating GNG, but the bias concerns about the source would need further investigation to be sure.
I was waiting to hear back from Darth-Wiki-Man before proceeding further, particularly on the question of other sources. Depending on that answer, I could be convinced either to AfD or WP:DRAFTIFY if there was a committent to re-writing the article as one on the product, followed by submission through AfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: Thanks for your detailed reply, and pointing my error out! I think I agree with your summary of refs.
On the Common Sense Media source- RSP does say that There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed. However, there doesn't seem to be explicit info on if Common Sense Education (a program of Common Sense Media as per the Common Sense Media article) is also generally reliable but biased/opinionated for educational apps reviews. However, I would guess its reliability is similar. Hence, overall, I agree that IMHO the three refs demonstrate borderline notability.
I proposed deletion because I struggled to find any sources that would demonstrate what we need to assert notability, either for a website or corporation; like above, it isn't easy to distinguish what the article is supposed to be representing. I was going to rethink it this morning after observing the PROD was removed last night, but see others have got there beforehand. There are numerous "review-like" coverage from secondary sources, but I don't necessarily consider this at contributing towards notability (and X-million users is largely irrelevant). I see an AfD has been raised too, so the discussion probably doesn't need to continue on this user talk page. Bungle(talk • contribs)07:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment regarding the notability, as I haven't looked into any of that, but I think some of the confusion might stem from the sentence in the History section that says, "founded the game". The wording is a little awkward because, while companies are founded, games aren't. So it might be more straight-forward if it was "founded the company" or "developed the game", whichever is more accurate. Useight (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooket until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I would like you transclude my RFA, as I don't have enough edits to do so, and you have previous experience with such things. Include the following text:
"I am TheWikiDonald, a Wikipedia contributor and aspiring admin. I have mostly done behind-the-scenes work, fixing spelling and grammar errors. I would like to be an admin so that I can protect right-wingers from deplatforming and disinformation, and keep Wikipedia free for all. Vote yes, or I will find you, and you will pay the price."
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited USA for Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human chain. 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.)
Darth-Wiki-Man, you just nominated three articles to be GAs: Marina Bay Sands, Burj Khalifa, and Burj Al Arab. Unfortunately, all three were out-of-process nominations, and have been reverted.
Per WP:GANI#N1, Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. Since you have never contributed to any of these articles, you would have had to consult first before nominating, which you did not do. Further, you should ascertain that the articles meet the GA criteria even before that, and Marina Bay Sands could not possibly have qualified: it has been tagged with an "advertisement" template, and articles that read at all like advertisements are clearly ineligible for GA status.
The Marine Bay Sands nomination makes it clear that you are insufficiently experienced to properly judge what articles fit the GA criteria and which ones don't, not only because of this, but because of the issues you've had at Articles for Creation, which is less advanced. I suggest that you gain a great deal more experience with creating and editing articles that can meet the AfC level of scrutiny before you again consider making nominations for Good Articles, and then only of articles you've done significant work on. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Darth-Wiki-Man, if you have been a major contributor to an article, then you don't have to consult. However, USA for Africa is very far indeed from qualifying in its current form, and if you were thinking it was, then you do need much more experience before any further nominations. Indeed, as USA for Africa appears to be a content fork from We Are the World (the articles had previously been merged), it may well be merged again and no longer exist to be nominated. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tagishsimon was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
See WP:BLP1E. He's not notable. He's known because he's been arrested along with his better known brother. He fits exactly the three criteria for the one-event policy.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tristan Tate and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mattdaviesfsic}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
CorbieVreccan, I did miss that--and I saw where you said "Stop doing weird things." I don't know if the user has really stopped doing weird things (and at least they're a Crimson Tide fan...), but holy moly that whole section gets weirder and weirder. I see Jusdafax, JBW, and Vanamonde93 have also questioned what this user is doing here. I'll give them a chance to respond here, with that edit warring on the Heft article, but if any other admin thinks that we're wasting our time here, I won't object. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clear everything up, I am a changed editor, I am so sorry for any confusion. Since last fall I read over multiple editing policies and properly learned how to edit. Regarding today, it was a big misunderstanding, I did not know the reason behind the article being redirected, but as soon as I found out it was too late. Anything I have done to upset anyone, I am deeply sorry, I edit to gain knowledge, wisdom, and have fun. One of my weaknesses is communication and I am actively trying to improve. Again I am so sorry and I promise I will not make the same mistake again. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk)01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up to speed on your recent activity, so will have to look into this more, or defer to admins who have been watching. But really, WP:DONTLIE is pretty basic. How many times will we go over things like this, with you asking for forgiveness for the same stuff, promising to change, but then we find ourselves back here again? - CorbieVreccan☊☼01:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot more positive as opposed to negative, whatever happened today was a mistake and I was immature the other time(s). I implore you to forgive me and I can assure I will never be intentionally disruptive again. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk)02:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Darth-Wiki-Man, I think you were very lucky not to be blocked in October. However, having received an alert for the edit above in which Drmies mentioned me, I have looked through your recent editing history, and here are some of my thoughts about it.
The editing relating to Robert G. Heft amounted to an attempt to unilaterally overturn the outcome of a consensus in a discussion. I can't tell whether you did that in good faith, not fully realising the nature of what you were doing, but if so you really need to be careful to avoid making similar mistakes again.
Most of your recent edits seem to have been fairly minor and uncontroversial, unlike some of your editing in the past.
Unfortunately, in the relatively few occasions when you have made more significant changes to articles, you have sometimes posted text which is in a poor attempt to write English, as for example in the article Jamestown Tercentennial Monument. Of course that is not any reflection on your good faith, but it does mean that your contributions to the encyclopaedia are likely to be less helpful than otherwise would be the case.
I did see one case where you had made a completely unexplained change which appears to be factually incorrect, and certainly does not agree with the relevant cited source, namely your edit at Mount Zion Presbyterian Church (Sandy Springs, South Carolina). Since I did not check every detail of every edit you made against every cited source, I can't be sure whether that was just a one-off, but of course I hope it was. Can you say where you got the information you posted into that article? Also, why didn't you provide a citation to wherever you got it from?
Your signature links to a nonexistent page in mainspace, rather than to your user page; please correct that. Also, the colour you have chosen for your talk page link is sufficiently close to the colour of a dead link that there is a danger that editors will mistake it for a dead link, at least that is so for many editors who, like myself, have defective colour vision; I don't know whether it is for people with "normal" colour vision. The primary purpose of the talk page link is to help editors to find the page, and by far the best way to make it helpful is to stick to the default colour, as that is what they will expect, but if you do wish for some reason to use another colour then it would be much better to avoid any shade of red, orange, or green. JBW (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Darth-Wiki-Man, this just jumped out at me from your reply above: "I implore you to forgive me and I can assure I will never be intentionally disruptive again." (bolding added). That sure looks to me like an admission that you have been intentionally disruptive. Geez. That is far more in line with what we've seen than your repeated promises to change into an asset to the 'pedia. You have promised to change before. I'm thinking of the famous Maya Angelou quote, “When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time.” - CorbieVreccan☊☼23:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JBW, I have a feeling you also saw this edit summary. DWM, it is your very competence that is being questioned here. You will need to be very careful; as JBW indicates, it's really kind of a miracle you're not blocked yet. Here is another thing for you to think about--not to discuss, not to rebut, but to think about. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think it might be because we had a cluster of admins all standing around, staring at the mess in confusion (I mean, some of his lies still make no sense), and maybe we all assumed someone else would take care of it. I admit I felt overwhelmed and didn't really want to deal with it. I guess I made the mistake of assuming someone else would push the button. I would have been relieved if they did. I watched for a bit, and he stopped editing for a while, and then seemed to only do minor edits, so I forgot about him until this popped up on my watchlist. I guess I have no reason not to do it now. - CorbieVreccan☊☼01:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call us sir, please, and stop making this about you. You're not a victim, this is not about people seeing or not seeing "good" in another person. The only question is this: can you be trusted with making decent edits that follow our guidelines? Right now I think it's four to nothing, with me abstaining for the moment, but the more you make these silly please about mercy, the more I am convinced that you really don't know what any of this is about. And instead of pleading here, you should, while you still can, make positive edits to convince those who think you are a net negative. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Drmies here. My finger is hovering over the button, but one question: If English is not your primary language, why are you focused on en-wiki? I'm looking at your global contribs and not seeing another language where you are active. Do you edit under a different name on another language wiki? - CorbieVreccan☊☼01:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually an American native but have lived in Cuba for 20 years, I can read and speak Spanish well, but not write. I do not have any non-English Wikipedia accounts. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk)01:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly believe that the community would benefit from my positive contributions, I honestly wish I had time to edit right now, but I am jetlagged after traveling to Europe, I apologize. Darth-Wiki-Man - (talk)01:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but, per usual with you, none of this makes much sense. I've taken into account what all the editors in good standing have had to say here, and I think you've used up enough of people's time and energy. Maybe try to improve your English and Spanish literacy, somewhere else, as well as your social skills and commit to telling the truth in your life. I don't think, after all of this, that Wikipedia is really the best place for you. Sorry, but, this has gone on for far too long. - CorbieVreccan☊☼01:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote my message above I forgot to include one part of what I had intended to say, which was to ask you to say clearly, honestly, and unambiguously, the truth, and the whole truth, about using other accounts. It may now be too late for that to make any difference, but I suggest you do so if at some time in the future you ever decide to request an unblock. JBW (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I find the exchange above at Help with RFA extremely strange. (Sorry for the lack of a convenience link, my coffee must not be working.) Valereee (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the ping above, but chose not to respond because frankly I didn't know what to say. I think this has been inevitable for a while, it's just that so much of the behavior has been bizarre that admins, myself included, have not been willing to pull the plug. Vanamonde (Talk)16:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about your RfA. It's the exchange at the section Help with RFA above. It's just bizarre. You responded to someone with 30 edits saying you'd transclude their RfA, which is a head scratcher. Then when someone advised you not to, you said you were just joking to see what they'd do, which is strange. Then you asked Curbon to edit an article for you, which is a little odd when they've never indicated an interest in that topic, and when they responded that the topic wasn't in their wheelhouse or interest area, you asked if they could just research the topic and add a few sentences, which is just clueless. Then you had an incredibly immature exchange with the original poster, and when someone called you on it, you apologized. The whole section just feels like maybe you should go do something else for a few years while you gain maturity. You've said you're getting your Master's, but honestly your interactions feel like someone much, much younger than that. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2023 (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).
As a former editor on Wikipedia, I am writing this appeal to apologize for my disruptive editing behavior. I recognize that my actions caused harm to other users and the broader community, and I take full responsibility for my behavior. In this appeal, I will acknowledge my wrongdoing, identify the harm caused, and outline a plan for making amends.
I want to start by admitting to my disruptive editing behavior on Wikipedia. I recognize that my actions were harmful and had a negative impact on other users and the broader community. I take full responsibility for my behavior and the harm it caused. I understand that disruptive editing behavior violates the principles of Wikipedia, which is built on the foundation of collaboration and respect for others. I deeply regret my actions and want to make amends for the harm caused. I have done a lot more good edits than bad, which is why I promise I will never be disruptive again. I love Wikipedia, it is my hobby and I would not want to ruin it in any way. I lied during the RFA and I am incredibly sorry, the Robert G. Heft and similar edits were all misunderstandings. Thank you for your time and I am sorry for any inconveniences I have caused.
Decline reason:
Your plan that you said you would describe in this request seems to be "I won't do it again", that is far from sufficient given your history of lies and prior promises. I don't see a pathway forward here without the standard offer, and even then you will need to be a lot more specific about the changes you will make. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2023 (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.
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).
After reflecting on my actions, research, and withdrawals I am sincerely sorry and finally realize how to properly edit Wikipedia. I have gone through and viewed various articles and found multiple ways to improve them once/if I am unblocked. I have just recently graduated last week and I will have a lot more constructive free time. I feel like I would be a good option to benefit the community. Although most of my past conversations were meant to be helpful, they have not come out right. I love Wikipedia and always will, I just want to be able to do what I love most, edit, if I got this ability back I would write an apology to the fellow editors I have upset, create useful articles, and help prevent vandalism, through all these I emphasize the use of communication. I would communicate a lot more by reaching out if there is an edit dispute, not giving in to inappropriate requests, and asking for advice. You do not have to, but I strongly implore you to give me permission to edit, for it is not my decision but Yours. Thank you.
Decline reason:
I strongly suggest that you read, and carefully consider, the advice given to you by JBW below. If you're looking at the standard offer, you've got some time before that would become applicable, so spend some of that time thinking over what went wrong and how you could be more convincing in terms of what we would see you do differently. Specific examples of what you know you did wrong, why, and how you should have handled it differently, will go a long way—but mind, that doesn't mean "come back with that tomorrow". Show that you have taken the time to really give it thought. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:45, 16 June 2023 (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.
I think probably the advice above, "I don't see a pathway forward here without the standard offer" is right. However, I'll spell out in further detail another point concerning your unblock requests which you have either ignored or not understood.
I believe that I am generally much more inclined to give blocked editors in this kind of situation another chance than most administrators who review unblock requests, and I may at some time in the future be willing to support an unblock request for you if you make one which was anywhere near adequate, but I'm afraid you have yet to do so. The comment that 331dot made when declining your last unblock request applies just as much to the latest one: you are basically just saying "I won't do it again". The problem with unblock requests that just say things along the lines of "I'm sorry, and I won't do it again" is that experience over the years shows that if the editor in question is unblocked, not just usually, but almost always, they do in fact do the same again. Sometimes that is because they were just lying to get unblocked, but sometimes, and probably more often, because they actually didn't really understand what the problems were. Therefore to stand any reasonable chance of getting unblocked you need to explain what you think you did wrong, and how your future editing would be different. However, why am I spending my time writing this to try to help you? I don't really know. If you have read the guide to appealing blocks, as you were advised to do, then you already know all this. I am also personally not going to even consider unblocking you, no matter how good an unblock request you may write, or how long you wait before doing so, unless you first respond to my request above for the truth about using other accounts. JBW (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
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).
It has been almost 6 months since I was blocked. I feel like I have learned my lesson. I am sorry for all that I did and will be a good editor. Please forgive me and accept my apology. Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2023 (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.
Darth-Wiki-Man, you will never be granted an unblock unless you give us a reason to. You have given us no reason to unblock you. TheBeachBro (talk)
December 2023
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. 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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Non-notable TV special (it's certainly not a telefilm); only sources here listed are noting its existence, not anything about critical acclaim or any impact the film had involving its premiere
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
