This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tonymetz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current 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 KJP1 was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Blatant advert by a paid contributor. Nothing like the Notability required for companies. Tagging for deletion.
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:Earny 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:Earny, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
the low quality citations have not yet been addressed. I pointed out the issues with both. I'm aiming to keep the bar high for citations. If the claim is endorsed by facts, we should have no problem finding high quality sources. Tonymetz (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Please do not use multiple accounts, like Tonymet (talk·contribs) unless for a legitimate purpose as listed under WP:VALIDALT. If you are using the alternate account as an account that you will use to edit on public computers, please indicate so. If it is a doppelganger, no edits should be made from that account. It could be misleading if you use multiple accounts to edit without establishing the connection.
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — ser!(chat to me - see my edits)11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I stand corrected, I didn't see you left a message on a third editor's talk page, just the two that had removed it. I'll strike my comment and I apologise. To answer your question; I have a lot of pages on my watchlist, and after the 2022 elections Joe Kent's one is one of them - I saw activity on my watchlist and edited correspondingly. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)21:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Let’s take it down a knotch. I’m sorry how that was received. I was trying to be more considerate by delivering feedback on your talk page, following the practice of other collaborators, and yourself. Tonymetz💬16:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It seemed to have been reverted by accident, and the content had not yet been addressed. Anyone can see from the content of the comment that it was not a troll. It was about the edit on the Joe Kent page. Tonymetz💬18:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
What? No, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I'm not taking any side in any debate. (Debate about what?) I'm warning you about harassment as an admin action. Same thing as I did with Biohistorian15. Bishonen | tålk16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC).
If a user can threaten admin action (WP:USERTALKSTOP) immediately when an issue is brought to the Talk page, what is the point of the talk page or WP:RUCD?
Also it would help to ad "admin" to your sig and if you are threatening people with "admin" action make that overt. I honestly didn't realize you were an admin until just now. Are you saying that since you're admin that we are not allowed to discuss things? Tonymetz💬17:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
No admin has the word "admin" in their sig. (If one did, I'm convinced they would be attacked for "threatening" to use their admin power every time they spoke to anybody.) You seem very interested in WP:RUCD,[3][4][5][6] but I advise you to stop trying to twist it into support for your notion that it's inappropriate for a user to ask somebody to stop posting on their talkpage. The difference between your view and Fred Zepelin's isn't some technicality from WP:RUCD, but simply that Fred denies having hounded anybody, while you seem to take it for granted that he has. Fred is offended by the accusation, and so he tells Biohistorian not to come back. It's very simple, and is the kind of thing that happens on hundreds of user talkpages every day. It should be followed by Biohistorian not posting on Fred's page again, and indeed so far he has not. That seems to offend you, and you can't leave it alone. This may be because of some old bad blood between you and Fred — I wouldn't know about that, and I can't say I care — but you should in any case stop trying to fan the embers of the conflict between Fred and Biohistorian through what you call a "debate". No, I'm not saying you're not allowed to "discuss things", I'm saying you need to stop pestering Fred Zepelin on his page. Bishonen | tålk18:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC).
I don't appreciate your condescending insinuations. I don't believe you are living up to your role here. You should do a better job at gathering context. Even the "restoring posts" reference you've exaggerated . And you didn't take the time to see the context of that single restoration. Tonymetz💬19:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
"pestering", "bad blood" , "offended" -- these condescending insinuations degrade the admin role. do better. What's the next step here? Are you going to try to help resolve the dispute? Tonymetz💬19:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you stirring up conflict like this [3]
thanks for that. yeah I forgot that was there. It was for an old startup. I'll clean it out once the ANI wraps up so people don't jump to any conclusions Tonymetz💬17:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
It's just one section. Could just remove the hat and leave the section there. Or add __TOC__ above it so that the table of contents shows up outside of it. Eventually you'd probably want to set up an WP:ARCHIVE bot, but this talk page is a bit small for that right now, so not needed yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't get __TOC__ working but I did set up sigmabot and open the hat back up. Let's see how the archives work out.
If you can get __TOC__ working on my talk page go ahead and add it. I'm thinking maybe doesn't work on talk? I tried __FORCETOC__ too Tonymetz💬16:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thanks for pinging me. I think the first ping was not received because WP tags are case-sensitive. (my username is red-linked on the other page) Tonymetz💬19:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
