This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommy1933.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sultanate of Cirebon into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Text was copied into Kraton Kacirebonan./wiae/tlk11:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SoccerIraq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoccerIraq 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. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Engelier. I do not think that Engelier fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because The page is currently a sub-stub with limited content, but there is enough that speedy deletion is not in my view appropriate. Whether the subject passes notability is a separate matter.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Engelier for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES(talk)18:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm sorry but I don't really understand with this reason 'This is unbeaten run/streak, not unbeatable overall'. Madura United really had an unbeaten run. After losing in gameweek 2 against Persela 2-0, Madura United had 8 unbeaten since then. Draw 2-2 against Mitra Kukar, win against Persija 1-0, Draw 1-1 respectively with Perseru and Arema, win 4-1 against PS TNI, draw 0-0 against Sriwijaya, win 3-2 against Gresik United and 2-0 against Persipura. That 8 unbeaten run. Isn't that what is called unbeaten run/streak? I know what unbeaten run means. Please check the source in http://liga-indonesia.id or http://id.soccerway.com/national/indonesia/super-liga/2016/regular-season/r35015/ if you doubt me. You'll see what I meant there. Thanks. Regards User:Wira rhea (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC+8)
A page you started (Laos national under-20 football team) has been reviewed!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for creating this. At the moment, it doesn't make it clear how it is notable and has no sources to verify it. If you're not already working on it, could you please look it over? Thanks again for your hard work.
I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Tommy1933. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy1933, I noticed that you attempted to add Persib Bandung directly to the WP:GAN page as a GA nomination.
This is not how you make a GA nomination; the instructions are at WP:GANI. The bot that makes up the GAN page every 20 minutes remade the page without your entry shortly after you made it. However, just taking a quick look at the article, I can tell that should it be correctly nominated, it will be quick failed, just as it was in 2015 when it was last nominated. There are a number of reasons. The primary one is that the prose still needs significant work; I strongly recommend that you request a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors, which you can do at WP:GOCER.
Before you do that, the article needs some more work. There are a few sections, and some long stretches, where there aren't any inline source citations; you'll want to fix those. More important, the article's introduction (lead section) is far too short. An article with over 30,000 prose characters, as this one is, should have three to four good-sized paragraphs; you want to touch on all of the main sections of the body of the article. A Good Article is required to meet the guidelines in MOS:LEAD, in addition to being well-written, well-sourced, and meeting the rest of the GA criteria.
Best of luck going forward. You've made good progress with the article lately, but there is more work to do if you wish it to reach the level of a Good Article. Please don't nominate the article until you've worked on the sourcing and the lead section, and had a good copy edit done. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tommy1933. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi there
Do you have a references that shows Dzhalilov has signed for Sriwijaya?
Looking through twitter, and various Indonesian news articles they are all either saying he has rumored to have signed, or has a deal in place and will be announced in the next few days. I understand it is highly likely he will be a Sriwijaya player for the 2018 season, but until there is an official announcement he's team shouldnt be updated.
Hello Tommy1933, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
Hello Tommy1933, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
{{unblock|reason= @KrakatoaKatie:, i use wifi, shared connection. and my friend uses wikipedia too, sometimes my device is used by him.
so our IP may be the same.
because my device one device could be used by another person or a friend who also uses wikipedia.
next time, don't blocked if not sure, Consider first, wait a response from the user, please reconsider. Thanks! Tommy1933 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2018 (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).
they thought I was abusing multiple accounts, but i'm not. i use wifi, shared connection. and my friend uses wikipedia too, sometimes my device is used by him. so our IP may be the same. because my device one device could be used by another person or a friend who also uses wikipedia. next time, don't blocked if not sure, Consider first, wait a response from the user, please reconsider. Thanks!
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.
2018
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.
I've contributed a lot here over 3 years, creating articles, editing, helping projects, adding maintenance tags, i help related article stub by expanding it.
and many more.
yes i understand what i have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead. Tommy1933 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (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).
HhhhhkohhhhhYamla yes i have read the guide to appealing blocks. then how else? I've contributed a lot here over 3 years, creating articles, editing, helping projects, adding maintenance tags, i help related article stub by expanding it. and many more. yes i understand what i have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Tommy1933 (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You were block using CheckUser evidence based on a discussion amongst functionaries. While this isn't technically marked as a CheckUser block, I don't believe any administrator would unblock you at this point on their own because of this. Your block requests also haven't really addressed the concerns expressed in the block (namely, you were socking), so I am revoking TPA. As per below, your best bet here would be not to edit for 6 months, and then appeal to WP:UTRS for a second CheckUser to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:02, 28 February 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.
Unblock discussion
You say your friends shared an internet connection. Did they also share a common interest in Persib Bandung, Egy Maulana Vikri , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egy Maulana Vikri? You do know that separate people coordinating off-wiki and acting in concert to vote in an AfD is still sockpuppetry? It looks like you are a NPP. That's too bad. It also looks like you pushed t get a not GA article GA status. That's too bad as well. IT's a shame to lose you, even for 6 months. The socking has destroyed our ability to trust you. Maybe ever. No one. No one is going to consider unblocking you at this juncture. (non check users aren't allowed to anyway.) Your only hope is to wait 6 months w/o editing, including unblock appeals, or socking, be fully forthcoming about the socking, and request the standard offer. You were blocked as result of a discussion among functionaires. This is a checkuser block. You might want to consider appealing via WP:UTRS and ask for a check user to review your SPI, but on you present course you are only resetting the clock on the six months without editing. Every time you edit.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macau national under-20 football team 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.
Hello, we are seeking help with the Sarah Azhari article, created in 2013 & recently the subject of a deletion proposal. At issue was whether or not the Indonesian language sources establish notability. I am inviting you to the discussion at Talk:Sarah Azhari#Help with Indonesian language sources because you are in the Category:User id-N & have a minimum of 1,000 edits across all Wikimedia projects.
I realize that some of you are very busy while others may no longer be editing. Nevertheless, I thought it wise to consult with you.
