User talk:NP83: Difference between revisions

NP83 ^Talk 05:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ɪ

Hello, could you please provide greater clarification as to why this draft submission was declined? While the reason stated is that "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article," the tone feels considerably formal to me. Could you please let me know if there are any more specific changes that need to be made?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithdt12 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a redirect on the page you tagged under WP:A10 of the speedy deletion criteria. Generally A10 should only be used if the title of the article is not a plausible redirect (redirects from the draftspace to the mainspace are fine, for example Draft:2024 United States Presidential Election) and should only be used for mainspace articles. BangJan1999 00:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to this reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kodokushi&diff=next&oldid=1148303317&diffmode=source

Please enlighten me on why my sentence restructuring (which attempted to address the disjointed delivery of the sentences), as well as an addition of the name of the artist (which was oddly unmentioned, unlike in the cited articles) "did not appear constructive". I want to be sure I'm not wasting my time fixing poor writing on this site. - 115.133.202.214 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @115.133.202.214:, I reverted your edit as you have changed the sentence and added names, and you are claiming the cited source mentions the name, perhaps you can undo my edit just remember to add proper justification on edit summary to support your change. Thank you NP83 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't very helpful. I just shuffled the words around with no loss of context in the rephrasing, and any quick cursory check on the citations clearly presented the name of the article. Back in the day, when I actually had a registered account, I made it a point to copyedit changes by other users on the watched articles. But now it's like WP:AGF is thrown out the window, with editors outright reverting changes by other with minimal reasoning, as if none of them are trusted anymore.

I'm not even going to bother undoing your revert anymore. Goodbye. - 115.133.202.214 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

115.133.202.214 May I know what happened with your registered account and you are using an IP NP83 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fit a plane through the door in the video? I’ve worked on site there doing acoustic testing for nose leakage between the two studios. Unfortunately the best picture I have is of the duct work in the video. [1]https://i.imgur.com/JSKG9Jc.jpg Brettso1970 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look familiar

[2]https://imgur.com/a/xKSVc9z Brettso1970 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deletion and draftification proccesses on my articles! A sincere request for you too see that I am also an extended confirmed user here as you're. I am not any less experienced. I duely request you to see articles on MPs and MLAs of Nepal, Not all are with sufficient reference. That doesn't mean they are in deletion process. They sufficiently pass WP:Notability and I don't see that I have added anything without reference! Franked2004 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Franked2004 from next time I am not going to make any judgement on your articles, I was just shocked by watching a main space article carrying three articles. NP83 (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

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

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just mentioning a rollback you made to that article - the reason given for the rollback is invalid given the editor gave a very good reason for rollback. Flowery language is not for Wikipedia - we're not trying to make a bias here. If you wish to debate that, instead of rollbacks you need to go to the talk page. I'm reverting for the sake of neutrality. AidenTEM (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I logged my work with three full sentences, which seems like it should be sufficient. I acknowledge I made some large-scale changes for a newbie. I was expecting there might be some discussion with more experienced Wikipedians as to what was and wasn't relevant on the page. MagentaIsAFunColorToBe (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MagentaIsAFunColorToBe your justification was totally constructive you can check on your talk page I mentioned before making a major change (where just not adding removing is present) as an newbie it's always recommended that to discuss on the talk page, my only mistake was I haven't marked the edit as good-faith while reverting. Perhaps you got my reverting point. @AidenTEM Wanna add something?

Thank you, Happy editing! Good night NP83 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, assumed it was an accusation of vandalism as that's the assumption given by Twinkle for a default edit reason. Sending people to the talk page is always better than just giving them the default message, so that is probably best practice for future. Nothing further to add from my side, good points made. AidenTEM (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NP83 Based on how quickly the notification email for your message followed on me clicking Publish, I'm curious through what facility you took note of my changes. I don't know all the machinery that more experienced Wikipedians have at their disposal. I do know vandalism is a perennial issue. Is there some facility that logs edits with a large proportion of content removed & flags them for review with a speedy-rollback option right there? If such a facility exists, that seems like something I should know about. MagentaIsAFunColorToBe (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Recent Changes page (available in the sidebar) and maybe also a built-in tool called Twinkle that can be filtered to alert us to specific types of changes - it's how I noticed the several paragraph deletion, that sort of thing always shows up. If you hit publish right before someone hits refresh, you'll be the next in line to be checked. AidenTEM (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NP83 Looking back on it, what you did is why I stopped working on Wikipedia. It was only my 3rd edit. I was all set to try and be a contributor. But the first time I try to really fix a page, my work is undone within a minute and an editor's on my case? Seriously, this is what trying to make a difference on Wikipedia is like? I can work for half an hour, click submit, and some editor will just toss it in the trash, like my time and effort is worth nothing. Good to know. I just wanted you to know you drove a new contributor away. Maybe you should think about whether your behavior is appropriate. MagentaIsAFunColorToBe (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walkley (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding my recent edits to Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve, I think that that they are suitable for the article and are not for a sandbox. I am not sure if the Torrey pine there should continue to be listed as a subspecies rather than a variety. 108.18.207.147 (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GeSm99 reported by User:Snowmanonahoe (Result: ). Thank you. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, You reverted an IP user's edit at War on women, saying it was unsourced. It wasn't; as mentioned by the reviewing editor, all of the sources mention abortion in some way.

Honestly, I'm ambivalent towards the original addition (abortion is included under the umbrella of reproductive rights, and it does make the sentence longer). I just wanted to politely (I hope I'm bein polite lol) point out that just because a source wasn't added, that doesn't mean something was unsourced. I guess you could call it WP:UNDUE or something if you really wanted to :P Wracking ^💬 05:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt have to mention the source because it was already mentioned in the first reference.

Bere are 3 simple reasons why abortion being specifically mentioned is essential in the opening.

1. Since abortion is a major part of the reason both sides feelings over "reproductive freedom" laws in the "war against women". And on those trying to pass such laws by far the leading cause.

2. many people support contraception but oppose abortion,

3. a very strong number of the laws being discussed are abortion related specifically

A clear understanding that laws against abortion are a major part of this "war" is essential for anyone to understand the issue without bias. 2600:1017:B8C6:D74:0:31:7A77:C201 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about it. @Wracking. NP83 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the speedy deletion tag you were looking for is R2 for redirects from article space to draft space. -- Whpq (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq Yes you are correct but I used twinkle instead of manual CSD,can you tell me that if can add these tags on twinkle or not? NP83 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on your question. Twinkle does have R2 listed as an option for tagging a redirect for deletion. Is that what you want to know? -- Whpq (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq TBH I wasn't sure that which deletion tag will be applicable for this CSD, I opened twinkle and then see throughing all the tags mentioned there but I haven't found R2 listen on twinkle as an option for tagging a redirect for deletion. NP83 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can get help at the Twinkle talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thank you. ;) NP83 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I did a rewrite. Please take another look. -- Filmforme (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmforme Firstly thankyou for watching the comment and trying to solve it accordingly, I can see you have submitted the draft for review please wait as I think a new AFC reviewer will decide whether to accept or not. NP83 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sup P.J. I'm interested in the creatine edit and perhaps you could shed some light on the other issues from the sandbox. Thank you 104.128.161.186 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NP83,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out to you regarding my draft for Brett Gregory, which was recently declined for not being written in a formal tone and for using peacock terms. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to review my submission and provide feedback.

I have carefully reviewed the guidelines and made the necessary changes to my draft to ensure that it meets the requirements for a neutral and encyclopedic tone. I have also removed any language that could be perceived as promoting the subject to the best of my ability, but any further feedback is really valued.

I would be very grateful if you could take another look at my draft when you have a moment and let me know if there are any further revisions I can make to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

James JamesMarsdan (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 28 April 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).

NP83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have shared many times that I use public wifi for edit, previously many times I got problem having restrictions for editing wikipedia. I'm not connected to any other account.NP83 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We get a lot of people saying that; if it worked we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy since everyone could talk their way out. Think about this ... we'd have to take you at your word, we have no way of confirming what you say. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 29 April 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.

NP83 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I shared my honest answer, how please guide how to get unblocked. NP83 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong technical evidence that says you have violated the sockpuppetry policy. Users with access to this information cannot detail it here to protect your privacy. You may appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee who hear appeals that are made on the basis of this kind of technical evidence. You can do so by emailing them at arbcom-enwikimedia.org or using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have read Draft Meesho again and again but I am unable to understand how I can make it more neutral. Please share your thoughts. Everbethesame (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]