Hello, TheGreatWikiLord, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Hi, I have added another task in your academy page with some remarks in respect to your previous complete tasks. Please check and do keep the page on your watchlist. Cheers, JimCarter12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I'm glad to inform you that you've passed the level one of your training, congrats! I have added another section which represent level 2 along side some more tasks. Best, JimCarter07:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multan 'Sultans'?
Hi! You created two pages; 2018 Pakistan Super League and Multan Sultans. I am against this decision as for now, and I think the pages should be created after 2018 PSL players draft. You have made them too early. One more thing, Multan team has not officially got the title of 'Sultans' yet, it was just one from suggestions that were given to the franchise; briefly check out this. So, the pages should have to be deleted for now, Thanks!
The 2018 season will be sometime at the start of next year, so I suspect the draft is only a few months away. That article can be kept to feature any updates and initial news about that season. But I agree as far as the Multan franchise is concerned, everything is speculative for now. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Billoo2000:This Cricinfo article appears to use Multan Sultans as the franchise name. It appears that this name is certain, even if it hasn't been officially announced yet. Cricinfo is a reliable source. So I think the article can stay. Mar4d (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added appropriate references that confirm the information to make sure it is not "speculative." Super Bowl LVI taking place in 2021, already has a page with one reference. You link doesn't work. I think, IMHO, it is appropriate time to create these pages and let's keep them and expand them. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: OK. But then see this too, if DAWN is a reliable source so it is saying "$5.2 million per year for an eight year contract, therefore worth $41.6 million". Is this line reliable too? Because again there is no official statement for eight-years contract. Again, maybe check out the facebook vide. The owner replied on team's name, "We have several options, we haven't finalised anything else; but more than the name, we had to focus on......" This means announcement is far away, they haven't confirmed the name themselves yet! Adding references will not help right now. It will OK if they decide and announce the name 'Sultans', or what would be done here if any other name is announced instead of Sultans?
On GreatWiki's message, Super Bowl LVI page has nothing unofficial as I checked. It says, "authorities announced... at the league's owners meeting...", so the information officially revealed as of now has been added in the page. There is no self or un-official predictions. They have a little valid info to make article stable. But here in both pages you made, you only gave intro which cannot make the page stable.
Are you predicting the name 'Sultans' and logo by the references that are not reporting something 'exclusively' or 'officially? All has been publicly revealed already, these some references are saying just too much. As for now, I don't believe. Try to make differences between official and un-official. I don't know why Pakistani news outlets either don't report anything or try to promote "we were first for this news!" before it's official announcement. Thanks! M.Billoo14:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not predicting anything. I am just adding verified bits of information from mainstream newspapers. I'm really sorry, but whether you (or any of us for that matter) believe these sources or not is irrelevant. Also, I can't see your Facebook video, and I am not sure what the news article from June has to do with anything. I did not add the logo, someone else did. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again. How could be something verified before its official/personal confirmation. The newspapers and news outlets are maybe believable, but not when they are reporting something un-official. That was not my facebook video, I linked the official one, OK then watch that on YouTube here. I still disagree on the predictions, no matter if they are by verified newspapers. It's like saying someone prime minister before elections, or naming a newborn baby before ceremony. M.Billoo01:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The Youtube video was an outdated source. It was more than 2 weeks older than my references. I am glad that it is done, and we all agree that articles stay. Thank you and have a nice day. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! After your recent edits on Multan Sultans, I would like to ask you are they really verified? Great! But I told you earlier that you should now update references that are stating something official. The image logo has not been confirmed by the team officially, then why you added image? Again, I would say that work like officially, not only on verifiability. It is better to update there, "the name was officially announced on 4 August 2017, and the logo was revealed on (…not revealed yet)" with some solid references. Can you view official Facebook page or Twitter handle of the team for further updates, as official website has not been announced yet?
You said, "The Youtube video was… more than 2 weeks older than my references… we all agree that articles stay". But I had said, "watch that on YouTube (14 July video)… The name has been announced today (on 4 August)". This means all other news before 4 August were just only predicting the name 'Sultans' and were totally totally and totally un-official, which cannot make the articles to stay. Please revise and update articles, Thanks! M.Billoo21:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You created 2018 Pakistan Super League players draft and Multan Sultans in 2018, there is again no more sufficient information to share on Wikipedia. Repeated information on two pages; means repeated references and different page titles; cannot support the pages. Please try to understand, wait to create new page until there is enough sufficient information. As told that only page intro is not enough. Thanks! M.Billoo02:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you. These are nearly inevitable events about to happen shortly and will have significant amount of information and coverage. All pages start with little information. I think I created these pages at the right time. If you disagree then WP:AFD. In the meantime, I would appreciate all help in expanding these pages and would recommend WP:IAR and WP:BITE for some leisurely reading. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! There are 5 other teams too, then why not Islamabad United in 2018, Karachi Kings in 2018 and so on pages have been created? Yes, because of lack of sufficient info; better see this too. I obviously don't want to add it in WP:Afd myself, but we have to wait to create new pages. Apart from WP:IAR, consider discussing other users too. And what do you mean by WP:BITE here? M.Billoo02:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Indoor Football League season until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Public Discussion with Wikipedia
Hi, Dr Netchitailova here:) The other day I was just checking how serious this site is (by trying to edit an article), and it is the most intelligent insight so far into how to change education for the better (since I couldn't edit anything without following very rigid, extremely well-thought procedure, which does confirm that one has to be very intelligent to change or add content here). So, I will advance in academia the fact that Wikipedia should be used in academic settings freely and without shame:) Does help to skip a trip to the library, or a long read of numerous books. Libraries should stay though, since they have books, and we all love them, or at least should.
Queen Ekaterina
http://porcupineswisdom.blogspot.co.uk/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Netchitailova (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 October 2017.
We are already notified after page's creation, that's why I am message you after you create a page, or how do I know? If I, or anyone creates a new page for PSL, you will be notified too. I said try to have some discussion before creating page. Also, wait till enough information to share. I saw, you added Multan Sultans' players in the page, and added only headings for rest of the teams. Will that work?? M.Billoo00:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I haven't seen any update on that page yet. For your this edit, I already mentioned above that 'Karachi Kings in 2017' and similar pages were made active in February 2017. If you are going to made those right now, again it is too early.
Also, your this edit has been undone, due to you used an old reference there, a new reference was already given above.
Sorry I didn't understand your "I see not much discussion going on that page". You can start a conversation there, and can notify other users for help or suggestions. Or if you think you don't want to message there, you can notify others here on your talk page too by leaving a message. M.Billoo08:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON - season is months away from starting yet. Redo it in three or four months time - perhaps when we know it will occur and who the players might be
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.
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Dorothy A. Hogg. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Teaver New Page
Hi I am the author of Jonathan Teaver wiki page and I need some info on what is missing. Is is a problem with the references or the notability of the person involved. Thanks,
FWC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwc (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping both that you could explain your reasoning (given the controversial state of the AfD, giving your reasoning when you closed the AfD would hve been appreciated)
Also as a controversial case I feel it should have been closed by an admin - but in any case I believe consensus was for redirect, and certainly not all the way past NC to Keep.
As well as your explanation I'm hoping that you could undo your close - please let me know either way asap.
Hello, TheGreatWikiLord, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki08:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name. Orphan Wiki08:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walk-in clinic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVS (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.)
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).
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).
What matters in an unblock request is what you did, not what others did. What you did was clearly a personal attack. If you don't understand how it was, you need to reevaluate your perceptions. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (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.
Anti-vandalism
First, there is a significant difference between reverts of changes like [1] (which is clearly a revert of a good-faith edit), and changes like [2] or [3]. You could probably call them test edits, but not "good-faith" attempts at contributing.
Second, comments like It is obvious that you are too high on your administrator horse to see that I decided to take a softer approach. are always a bad idea; I'm not sure it reaches the level of a blockable personal attack but it's always a bad idea to test that boundary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: you'll get a heck of a lot farther here if you change your username, at WP:CHU. Probably to something that doesn't include the words "Great", "Wiki", or "Lord". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:power~enwiki care to explain, What prevents someone with the word "wiki" in his name from going farther ? And why should a non offensive name such as his be a subject to likeness of others ? I mean, do you support or oppose a person based on his user name or his proposal/edithistory ? --DBigXrayᗙ21:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply describing things as I see that they are; IIRC there's a WP:UAA/BOT filter for users with "Wiki" in their username because they are so often troublesome. Words like "Great" and "Lord" that proclaim a user's own awesomeness are also a common sign of concern. Perhaps the wider community will give you a more edifying response if you still disagree. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think your bot logic is unfounded, I have seen many users with such name, For example these wonderful folks I interacted with recently have that name, Yo User:WikiemiratiUser:WikiHannibal, do you guys face problems with username as has been described above ? I don't believe you do, but still would like to know from you. Even Power~enwiki name has the word wiki in it. :D
regarding your disagreement with words like "Great" and "Lord" and "users awesomeness" are all subjective and cannot be imposed on others, folks who imposed such things onto others are despised. Plus I don't think that a name having "Great" and "Lord" is any better or worse than another name having "Power" or "wiki". Now I am sure I have seen lot more awesome names and one of my all time favourite "Awesomeness proclaiming user name" is User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and he was an admin. true that. So again, I am not sure how such names are of any concern.--DBigXrayᗙ23:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misrepresent the situation, Chase me, the user was not blocked for saying I'm "on a high horse". That's just silly, obviously no one is ever going to block over that. TGWL requested to be vetted for additional user rights, received a fair, perfectly reasonable assessment of their edits and behavior, and when the results were unfavorable, rejected the results, personally attacked the reviewing administrator (myself, but that's irrelevant), announced their intent to re-apply after 90 days, when the bot wouldn't detect the unfavorable assessment, and subsequently used the negative assessment they had received to justify their personal attacks, and when that didn't work, they cried "admin abuse". The the block was not harsh, it was actually exceedingly lenient. And it was certainly justified, and three reviewing admins agreed. You can't just insult PERM admins because you got declined, that's unacceptable. Good faith criticism in a formal behavioral assessment does not open the window for retaliatory personal attacks. Competence to accept negative feedback without losing your cool is required. Don't request to be vetted for special privileges if you're not going to be able to accept even the slightest criticism. The reality of the situation, Great Wiki Lord, is that you were declined over a minor issue, and your response to that has damaged your prospects for being granted additional privileges far more than that issue ever would have. Swarm talk 21:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm "Good faith criticism in a formal behavioral assessment does not open the window for retaliatory personal attacks" works both ways. If you see my talk page you can see evidence of other people giving "good faith criticism," and I have always accepted it. You can't talk about "good faith criticism" and at the same time block me for giving you "good faith feedback." Is there anything wrong with applying again in 90 days (Even though I was implying that I was walking away from the disagreement.) I wasn't gaming the system, I just wanted a neutral re-evaluation. I don't care if you are a PERM admin or whatever, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else. First You have not pointed out what exactly you considered to have met the criteria for a personal attack. and second Even if it was a personal attack, you went against this. Saying stuff like "Swarm is one of the few active admins who I think doesn't deserve to have his mop privileges reviewed" is hardly an independent evaluation and more likely to be analogous to professional courtesy. Neither you, nor "three reviewing admins" answered exactly what was interpreted as an attack. AS a dmin aren't you suppose to lead by example, you can't talk about accepting "even the slightest criticism" and yet at the same time block someone for criticizing you, even if the Wikipedia policyadvises otherwise. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and power~enwiki, thank you for pointing out that other editors would also interpret my edits as good faith edits. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(←) You can't really credibly argue that telling someone that their conduct is "unbecoming", that they are "are unable to respect people with differing opinions", that they are "on a high horse", and that they are "immature" are not personal attacks. You were unambiguously attacking me in a personal way. Telling someone that they're wrong due to defects in their character is not "good faith criticism", it's an ad hominem attack. Literally, it's not a matter of interpretation, it's objectively an ad hominem attack. NPA is not some sort of complex, nuanced concept. "Comment on content, not contributors." It's that simple. You can't retroactively argue your way out of that. Demanding to know what "criteria" are satisfied to classify something as a personal attack suggests that you still are unwilling or unable to understand the very simple concept of "don't attack other editors". Nothing at WP:NPA suggests that a user can't be blocked for personal attacks. In fact, it specifically says, " A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." Between an apparent inability to get through to you via communication, and the brazenness of launching straight into personal attacks because an admin who wasn't giving you what you wanted, seemed obvious that you don't understand what is unacceptable conduct here, and that you would likely continue to do it if you were not blocked. And, frankly, rather than making a convincing argument that the block wasn't necessary, you're making it seem like it wasn't effective by being this obstinate. You seriously need to change your approach here if you want to continue editing, this is not a battleground, it's not about winning, it's not about obtaining user rights, it's a serious academic project, civility, competence, effective communication are all required, and poor conduct is only given so much patience. Oh, and for the record user who said I 'don't deserve to have my mop privileges reviewed' was not one of the reviewing admins, nor an admin at all. Swarm talk 00:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, I think you missed the point and context of these comments. Out of context they can seem like an attack, but look at the context where I used them.
Unbecoming and unable to respect people with differing opinions are not an attack, but a honest assessment of your response. I very kindly pointed out my reasons for marking those edits as good faith. Other editors have expressed solidarity with assuming good faith for many of those edits. This points out that marking those edits as AGF is something many editors would have done, and goes against "reverting obvious vandalism as good faith edits" comment. As you can see, from the context, these comments are not generic attacks, but my very honest ans fact-based assessment.
on a high horse When you refer to yourself in the third person and boasting you administratorship as you did when you said "when an administrator points out," I see that being on high horse. Also see above for you lack of humility. You also have the attitue that you are the almighty administrator, and hence cannot do wrong. Regardless, You have already said "the user was not blocked for saying I'm 'on a high horse.'" Either "high horse" did or did not play a role in you blocking me. You can't have it both ways.
comment of content, not contributors I was commenting on content by pointing out WP:AGF and WP:BITE, until you started questioning my competence and maturity.
continue using personal attacks If you read the last part of my comments I made it clear that I was walking away. "reapply in 90 days" and "until then" make it clear that I considered that conversation over.
WP:HAT, I made it clear why I wanted that permission, I want to use WP:Igloo. These are not hats I want to collect, but more like tools that I think I will find helpful.
you're making it seem like it wasn't effective by being this obstinate. You seriously need to change your approach here if you want to continue editing Are you seriously threatening to block me again? It seems like you are the one who is not getting the point here. Off course, you have the technical privileges to block me, and I can't stop you. But if do block me again because of this, you would have made it very clear that you consider to yourself above the rules.
argue your way out of that I am not trying to argue out of anything, but trying to highlight that on this particular incident you did indeed abuse your admin privileges. As DBigXray pointed out that I am not the only ones who thinks that this incident is a "good candidate for a wider discussion by community."
As you said this isn't about winning this is about making sure that the rules are consistently applied to everyone. If an incident of suspected abuse occurs, it needs to be pointed out for two reasons. First is to make the user aware of it so they can take better precautions next time, and second is that if there is a pattern it can be easily identified, and the abuser can be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm arbitration case request
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.
Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.
In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 22:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheGreatWikiLord as Kevin clarified above the right venues are talk page followed by ANI, the talk page discussion here has happened, if you still feel your block needs to be reviewed by wider community, ANI is the right place. I think this "Block Review" is a good candidate for a wider discussion by community. --DBigXrayᗙ00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, TheGreatWikiLord. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
Hi! So you have a history of creating pages WP:TOOSOON without any official information. In your recently created page, you cited "a WP:RS[4]Dawn" improperly. The title itself says, "PM Khan has DECIDED to hold entire PSL 2020 in Pakistan: Naeemul Haq". The other reference [5], "“Next season of PSL WOULD take place in Pakistan, instead of Dubai,” said Imran Khan, while addressing the inauguration ceremony of online visa issuance on Thursday." But you wrote, "Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan has ANNOUNCED that the fifth season of the tournament will be held entirely in Pakistan", and that is what WP:UNSOURCED. Understand the difference between Will and Would. Hope it helps, Thanks! M.Billoo14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you think your decisions are superior and you have alleged me under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I have already said you earlier that I would not like to put any article into Afd. As well as I don't want to edit the article which is unsourced, and of course too soon. Are you even confirmed about the existence of year 2020? Are you predicting something by your own which has nothing to do with the officials as of now? For my behaviours, you can check my edits if I have done something which is a prediction here. Well, leave me or leave the future also, you are putting a wrong sentence on Imran Khan; a sentence which he didn't say. I am no way related to anyone, I am here to contribute with the references, what the references say. Thanks! M.Billoo15:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And both of them are defined (and now highlighted) by me above, they do not support what you are trying to say on the new page. M.Billoo18:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then atleast link the better reference to quote Imran Khan. [7] He assured about next PSL, he didn't even mentioned year 2020, nor even he said "next year's PSL" or "PSL fifth season". I am not against anyone, I just do not agree the creation of this page for now. You are predicting like you are more confirmed about it than him. Are you always right? I could be wrong often. Do you think you are the only to create the PSL related new pages on wikipedia? If you claim to be the Great or Lord, you aren't both. M.Billoo19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coming via WP:3O. Just a heads up that I am removing the request for 3O. This is because the specific issue is ambiguous, seems spread across multiple pages, and it's unclear a 3O is needed. You specifically pointed to 2020 Pakistan Super League, but in that case you created an article, M.Billoo2000 turned it into a redirect, and you restored challenging Billoo2000's rationale. All of this is pretty standard. If M.Billoo2000 persisted in blanking it, that would be problematic, but that has not happened here. The proper course for M.Billoo2000 would be to take it to AfD. As there was only the one edit challenging the article's creation (which is permitted), there's not really anything more to say about it. M.Billoo2000 can take it to AfD if he/she wants and you can both make the case there. I would also add that 3O is not a good venue for handling behavioral problems -- if you believe M.Billoo2000 is not acting in accordace with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (e.g. edit warring, WP:OWN issues, etc.) that's a matter better suited for e.g. WP:ANI. 3O is more about content than behavior. (note, however, that I'm not taking a position as to whether you should take it to ANI). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nurse practitioner 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 Amanda4187 -- Amanda4187 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NP practice
I find what was written about nurse practitioners to be extremely misinformed and biased. The information clearly doesn’t look at the data; NPs provide equal and, in some cases, better care, than physicians. There have been numerous studies demonstrating this. The NIH and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have released studies that support NP practice. What’s neglected here, is that NP’s begin with an RN degree which requires clinical hours. Then most NP programs require a minimum of 2 years practice as an RN, and then clinical hours and studies as an NP. These are not mid level providers. As NP’s are assigned the same acuity of patients as physicians and specialize in areas as well. Medical schools are moving towards a 3 year model. This would mean that they have the same time in medical education as an NP. An RN, BSN is science, medicine, and psychosocial care based. The NP course of study already has a foundation that medical students do not have. An NP works off of this knowledge by adding more advanced medicine and management education. These professions of NP’s and physicians are not in competition. They are unique and compliment one another. I believe the primary goal of some is to denigrate the NP profession because it cuts into the financial gains of physicians by providing excellent care, cost reduction, and patient savings. The editing of the profession’s defining factors are erroneous. Mindfulhuman (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Great Wiki Lord, (include Jim Carter here) I have set up the CVU Training for you as requested - see HERE; however, you have not edit/done any of the exercises. I also noticed you edit on you previous program at User:Jim Carter/CVUA/TheGreatWikiLord ( with a "?") I would like to know are you still interested in the program I set out to you and would like to participle as per your request? pls revert. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)04:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEA-ME-WE 6 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. CASSIOPEIA(talk)06:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recently requested permission to review pending changes SO I CAN CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO ON AN ARTICLE I CREATED AND REQUESTED PROTECTION FOR. However, because of a previous disagreement with an admin two recent admins Kudpung and L235, it appears that even though I have created 29 articles. Foung many instances of vandalism, except early on I took a slightly softer approach and marked test edits as WP:AGF, now all admin think are just focusing on that one incident and not grants me right that it is obvious that I need. I am trying to respond to them and since I am a very blunt person, the most accurate term I can come up with address them is Pompous Ass Fucks because of their inability to see the whole picture. Is that an acceptable term to use for this group or should I use another? Thanks for your opinion. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello TheGreatWikiLord. Your request for pending changes reviewer was declined because of concerns about your anti-vandalism work that were previously brought up at your request for rollback. You don't have a significant track record of good anti-vandalism edits since then that would show you have improved. If you are interested in requesting anti-vandalism permissions again, I would suggest that you spend some time reverting vandals using Twinkle or undo. On the note about improving since your rollback request, referring to other editors as pompous ass fucks because they disagree with you is a personal attack. If you continue to attack other editors, you may be blocked without further notice. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that you apparently don't quite understand what the right you request does - you don't need it to contribute to the page. That alone would have given me pause when reviewing your request. Huon (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheGreatWikiLord, you can consider yourself very fortunate that you have not been blocked again (and for longer this time) for your attitude towards admins who have declined to accord you special rights. Due to your behaviour, it is unlikely that any new requests for additional user rights will be accorded in the foreseeable future. (FYI: Swarm, Jpgordon, Huon, L235 , ). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheGreatWikiLord Please read the whole thing before making any decision. Here is my advise to you. I had to log out and become an IP contributor. I will explain why.
I agree with the point you are making, but you are going about this all wrong. I started editing wikipedia Circa 2001. I am an US Army Psychologist who served in Korean War. (Don't want you to think I am an inexperienced teen or anything.) I agree with you 100%. When I started with wikipedia, things were a lot different. WP:BITE, WP:IAR would guide editors. I agree with admins some of the edits you marked as WP:AGF were borderline and should have been marked as WP:VANDALISM. I disagree with admins that you don't know the difference. I buy your point that you undid all questionable edits. Since the glory days of wikipedia editing, then editors (particularly the admins) have become a lot more stickler and definitely have a chip on their shoulder. In my day an admin would've never blocked you, they would have masterfully de-escalated the situation. I mean look above Due to your behaviour, it is unlikely that any new requests for additional user rights will be accorded in the foreseeable future. Obviously, they don't care how much you contribute but since you pissed them off they now have a vendetta against you.
Get this out of your system. You have anger issues. Call all the names you want, to whomever you want. Get you anger out now. Then WP:FRESHSTART
Admins hold the keys and can game the system better than you. Your first block was exactly that. The blocking admins made sure you you applied for rights again the block would show up and no other admins would grant your rights. You can do everything right, but your attitude towards admins will always hold you back. They don't care that you have created Whatever many articles, they will cherry pick facts and based their decision on that one fact.
In the mean time you don't need reviewer rights, you can just add a space at the end of a paragraph and it will accept all previous changes. You don't need rollback right, continue using WP:STIKI
Make sure you accounts cannot be connected, play by the rules. WP:ADOPTION and WP:CVUA and other resources will help you get right and maybe even successful WP:RFA, I hope you will be an admin who will show the spirit ok Wikipedia more than some stupid rules, and promise you won't become a P_____ A__ F____.
None of the content on Wikipedia is so important that editors and admins have to put up with behaviour that is disruptive and/or uncollegial. We are generally nevertheless quite tolerant (too tolerant perhaps), but everything has a limit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheGreatWikiLord had requested to join CVUA program and as the CVUA trainer, I have accepted request so TheGreatWikiLord could have a fresh start and learn about counter vandalism and other related topics. I knew about the run in with Swarm and I advised TheGreatWikiLord do keep calm and be civil when interaction with editors as WP:5P4 and CVUA motto is Civility- Maturity-Responsibility for we the vandal fighters do receive rude messages from editor who we have sent warnings message to - see HERE. However, TheGreatWikiLord did not start the program after I had created the subpage and did not respond to my inquiry if you still interested in the program - see CUVA program at TheGreatWikLoard user talk page. Two things I agreed with IP 108.5.227.186 that TheGreatWikiLord needs to " (1) play by the rules and (2) You have anger issues, Get this out of your system", cant go around name callings and lash out your frustration when you dont get way or your requests are declined. Be polite always and it will not only server you a long way but editors, including I, will assist you in area where you need help with. CASSIOPEIA(talk)03:51, 26 August 2019 (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).
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).
I don't understand. This is so unfair and literally ochlocracy. I wanted to call them pompous ass fucks, but I knew that was wrong so I sought help so I can change the the choice of words. How is that wrong? I want to express my opinion without using those words so I asked for help using {{help me}}. I was genuinely seeking help from other user. I did not call him a pompous ass fuck on the request for permission page, I can here and sought help. Despite that fact that in my mind I found these people to be behaving like pompous ass fucks, among other things, I never called anyone a pompous as fuck. I was seeking guidance on what would be the civil way to relay my message. Plus who can I get warned for doing something and than get block without any additional action or alleged action on my part. AntiCompositeNumber said If you continue to attack other editors, you may be blocked without further notice. I didn't say anything that could even be construed as an attack and I was blocked anyway. I was trying to have a constructive conversation and Kudpung took it all so personally and got butt-hurt (again not sure if this is on sure block list, but that really relays my message accurately) and hosed me. He literally started canvassing and gaming the system. I mean how can you not see what happened here? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2019 (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.
Here's a hint. "I wanted to call them pompous ass fucks, but I knew that was wrong". You did call them pompous ass fucks. Repeatedly. Right here. Right in your unblock request. Unambiguously. You called them that. Trying to claim "I was just asking what to call them instead" is disingenuous and won't fly here. If you can't see that, I'm afraid we'll have to extend your block indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Yamla, In my unblock request I was trying to lay all my cards on the table. What I was thinking, and how it lead me to do what I was doing. I was not hiding anything and trying to be 100% honest and I still am being 100% straight with you. Maybe I should've kept the whole details of my thoughts to myself. I assumed if I came forward and confessed everything, including what I was thinking, you would understand me better and perhaps see what led to this misunderstanding. It appears I was wrong, since you are threatening to block me indefinitely instead of helping me. I guess the lesson here is not point out who I think may or may not be a you know what. I guess thanks for you help. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point noted
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).
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
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
Recommend indef with TPA withdrawal. User clearly from this issue and past problems does not have the temperament to interact civilly with others on a collaborative project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have interacted with many users on many occasions. I participated in a very hot debate on Nurse Practitioner with many users a did not lose my temper EVER, and I even walked away when I felt I had nothing more to add and thought that a healthy debate was taking place. I don't know how you can make such blanket statements so confidently without considering all the facts. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I respectfully (and unusually) disagree with Kudpung. While I take no position on whether this specific block should be lifted (and won't, as I have previously reviewed an unblock request), I see significant progress here. I'm frequently wrong in such cases, but indefinite blocks are easy if so. --Yamla (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this is where the problem started. Everyone wants to cherry pick one or two facts and focus on that, the next thing you know everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. All this started with "ohh because you said that one mean thing to that one admin that one time, we won't give you the tool you need to continue your otherwise very productive editing." I mean as for as temperament goes. I created an article that was nominated for AFD I argued my points, once I had nothing new to add or rebut, I bowed out and walked away. Then another time I nominated an article for deletion, after a counterpoint, I realized I was mistaken and withdrew my nomination. All these are just a few examples of my temperament and civility. I guess in this case Thank you Yamla, for not just going with the flow and looking at everything else too and pausing this WP:witch hunt. It is also my understanding that admins are held to an even higher standard. Therefore, I must ask Kudpung if the statement you made regarding indef with TPA withdrawal is justified? If so, then similar judgements were made at your WP:RFA then why didn't he withdraw youself from that WP:RFA(if we are going to apply the same standard). If not, then if you can make such rash judgments and expect to get away with them, then why would you make such a big deal out of 1-2 out of my over 1000 edits (less than 1/10th of 1 percent). So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You probably haven't noticed, but I have not declined your unblock request. What I have done is to make a recommendation - which ironically is based on a previous remark made by Yamla. One thing which is clear is that you do not exercise much restraint when it comes to throwing around with incivility and personal attacks, and still don't, and this reinforces my position even if Yamla chooses to disagree with me - which he is perfectly entitled to do. TPAW is for when editors abuse the unblock appeal system. My advice to you right now would be to sit this short block out before another admin decides to extend it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2019 (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).
With all due respect, I have already stroked through objectionable content and expressed commitment not to do that again. That literally fulfills the criteria listed. I am not sure how you convince an admin besides words to express, and withdraw my comments by striking out. both of which I have already done. Not sure what else is expected of me. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Your comments since this block are indistinguishable from trolling. I have revoked talk page access and upgraded this block to indefinite. – bradv🍁19:47, 29 August 2019 (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've removed the header with my name, which is weird. I'll let another admin review this (so please don't ping me.) My view is that simply saying "lesson learned, unblock me." is not enough to suggest it won't be repeated again, especially while arguing over semantics of policy with people. You should explain how you will behave differently going forward and what was wrong with your previous behaviour. While you have made some statements in this regard, I did not think it enough to unblock when I was reviewing. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent reply to Yamla above, you stated that this block is a "misunderstanding" and that this block was in error because you did not actually call other editors "pompous ass fucks"; rather, you merely wished to ask whether it would be okay to call other editors that. Do you still believe that the block was in error for this reason? If your views have changed, could you explain in more detail why and how they have changed, and how you will change your conduct moving forward, particularly in response to denied requests at WP:PERM? Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mz7 Views are defined by culture. Where I grew up it perfectly reasonable to call someone a ""pompous ass fuck" (I'll use the words here because everyone else using it to make references) as long as you can justify that they are in fact being a "pompous ass fuck." In my culture you just need to be ready to explain why someone may be a "pompous ass fuck". As a matter of facts terms like "pompous ass fucks" are appreciated and those around me and are preferred over sugarcoating things. THAT BEING SAID, I realize not everyone shares my culture. I see that the culture on Wikipedia frowns upon the use of terms like "pompous ass fuck." Therefore, next time I think that someone is being a "pompous ass fuck" or something for that matter, I won't use that term and instead will try to learn what are considered acceptable norms and stick to those. My views now are that norms and acceptability is defined by culture and I will try to learn and stick within the normal bounds of Wikipedia culture and thus refrain from terms like "pompous ass fuck." Again, these are my 100% honest views. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is pure and unmitigated horseshit. Your intent was to declare that the Wikipedia volunteers you were insulting were simultaneously pompous and had a fondness for anal sex? And you thought somehow that was acceptable because they truthfully were pompous and anally motivated? In what culture is it acceptable to do this in polite society? And this was somehow important to describing your experience on Wikipedia? You really need to study up on the Law of holes; you're an inch away from an indefinite block without talk page access. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? You obviously don't know what "pompous ass fuck" means. It has absolutely nothing to do with "fondness of anal sex." (BTW, I am NOT judging anyone! If anyone reading this and have any fondness for anal sex, that is none of business.) Please allow me to define ""pompous ass fuck" which can also be written ""pompous-ass fuck" The "ass" after pompous implies that being pompous is a dominant trait. "fuck" implies that the term is being used with an unfavorable connotation. "Pompous ass fuck" would mean something like "your actions are being interpreted to mean that you are a very haughty or magisterial individual and I do not mean that as a compliment." Which, I guess, also answers my question that started all this. Second point. I am sorry that my culture is not identical to you. Your comments would indicate that you are exhibiting anglocentric and white supremacist-like tendencies.(This, I guess, is more acceptable than what I would have said if you were in my cultural circle.) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, a poorly groomed or aesthetically unpleasing individual will be an "ugly ass fuck." If one lacks material resources, they would be a "broke ass fuck," If one is too tall in comparison with their peers, they would a "tall as fuck," etc. I hope I have explained it well enough for you to understand. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that I endorse the indefinite block and talk page access removal. Despite your stated commitments, your comments on this page are all essentially saying that you still want to insult other editors, stopped only by the rules. I'm afraid this mindset just isn't well-aligned with Wikipedia's principles, and this block is here to prevent the disruption associated with that misalignment. Moreover, writing Your comments would indicate that you are exhibiting anglocentric and white supremacist-like tendencies.(This, I guess, is more acceptable than what I would have said if you were in my cultural circle.) is a clearly inappropriate personal attack—note how the sentence in parentheses is a snarky rephrasing of the same insult for which you were blocked. Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this on mobile several hours ago, and brad beat me to the indef. It should not need to be said, but "cultural differences" is quite obviously not a legitimate reason to personally attack people, and this user's attempt to make such an argument is nothing short of bad faith trolling. ~Swarm~{sting}02:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey
Hi TheGreatWikiLord,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!06:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schön Properties (2nd nomination) 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.
Somewhere
