DeadlyRampage26

Hi DeadlyRampage26, and thank you for getting involved in reviewing good article nominations. I noticed your review of Breonna Taylor, a page I have watchlisted. I'm concerned that it was a bit too cursory. For example, you may have conducted spot checks, as required by the reviewing guidelines, but you did not note that or reveal the results. Additionally, there are multiple sentences and paragraphs that are uncited; are you confident that all of them are content that could not be reasonably challenged? If not, the nominator has some work to do to meet criterion 2b. These aren't the only problems with such a quick review, but I tried to keep it to ones that are not subjective. If you'd like more input, you could reach out to one of the Wikipedia:Good article mentorship/Mentors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi thanks for reaching out. I tried my best to match with the criteria and determine from their but I understand that I am new to the area and probably have errors. As for the citations, I did notice some of the events that you mentioned above. However, I referenced back to an edit I made on Donald Trump where I had criticised some unsourced areas and was told by a more experienced editor that it was generally OK (they referenced a specific WP rule) so long as the topic was covered broadly in another source somewhere else in the article. I might have misunderstood that or something, I'm not completely sure. Thanks for bringing your concerns to me. Since I have already passed the GA do you know of a way to pull it back until these problems could be corrected? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You know, I'm not really sure! That'd be a good question to ask at the discussion at WT:GAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

[My note from the assessment page: I am leaving a message on your talk page about additional citations and perhaps a minor tweak which can bring this up to B class. Rather than leave it with a lower rating, I think we should leave the request open and you can note that the article has been revised and ready for assessment.]

Comments This article can be brought up to B class relatively easily. I recommend that you make the following additions or changes in this article for a B class assessment. The suggestions below are not likely to be a problem for you since they mostly are about where citations are needed.

Every paragraph should end with a citation. Otherwise, it is not clear whether the preceding information is covered by a footnote earlier in the paragraph.

With the exception of information tables, which can be referenced in more than one way, Refs should not be in a separate Ref note at the top of a section or paragraph but should accompany the text in the appropriate places.

If all the information in a table is from a single source, that source can be cited in the caption to the table or introductory sentence. You have done that for the timeline table, assuming nothing in the table is not verifiable from the source, including items to be determined.

You will see tables with every item in the table accompanied by a citation. This is usually seen when the information in the table comes from different sources.

The military history bot rates articles not put up for assessment, up to B class. The bot will downgrade an article when it sees no citation for each point in a list and in the introductory sentence if it ends a paragraph or seems to be a separate paragraph. Coordinators and experienced assessors, who review bot assessments monthly, will overrule the bot if the opening sentence or caption has a citation meant to cover all of the bullet points. If these come from separate sources, separate citations should be given. Coordinators will also downgrade an assessment if they judge that the bot overrated the article, which does happen occasionally.

The sentences after the first sentence in notes for the table have no citations. Although the second sentence in each short paragraph may be logical or obvious, they appear to be predictions or speculation. Without citation of a source, they would be considered original research or opinion and not appropriate for a Wikiped article which is to be based on reliable sources. The first sentence of the second short paragraph apparently comes from a source that can be cited.

Notes require citations if the content is not completely obvious that the information comes from a cited source (and it usually probably isn't.)

If you have any questions, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK yep just replying from work Right now will get on that later DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just have left this comment and a ping for you on the assessment request page. I am adding it here to be sure you see it because I plan to remove the thread about this article from the request page soon. "I also will leave this comment on your talk page and will remove this request soon. The article as written contains certain conclusions, predictions and speculations. While I only noted the need for citations in a previous note to you, without citations, I cannot tell whether these statements are synthesis, your conclusions or are supported by the sources. Citations would cure this. So I am leaving this at start class. If you think this is a misjudgment or too harsh with respect to a C-class rating, feel free to ask another coordinator or active former coordinator or coordinator emeritus for another assessment or opinion. Otherwise, submit a new request for assessment after you have time to provide the citations. If you wish me to place citation needed tags rather than just give the general examples that I noted previously, please let me know." Donner60 (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

hi yep I'm fine with it being removed I've just got a bit going on so can't get on the edits right now DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, DeadlyRampage26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jacqui Lambie Network (Tasmanian Branch), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, saw you created an AFD- if you enable Twinkle in your Preferences under "Gadgets", it gives you an easy way of automatically doing all the formatting for an AFD with just 1 or 2 clicks :) GraziePrego (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks man I wasn't aware of that feature. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DeadlyRampage26. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Troy Pfitzner".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 13:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi DeadlyRampage26! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Australian Greens several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Australian Greens, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 06:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

sure DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're a good editor, don't tarnish that with silly edits like this. I T B F 💬 13:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks man. Was a bit drunk when i did that. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi DeadlyRampage26,
Can you explain why you edited another editor's user talk to move discussions into an archive you created for them, as shown at Special:Diff/1241255323, Special:Diff/1241255352 and Special:Diff/1241255372? TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I moved it to an archive as a courtesy for both Jy and myself to introduce the editor to archives if he wanted to use them in the future and also so I would stop getting pinged and in the hope it would stop further arguments about a stalemated conversation. I wasn't aware that it was a big deal exactly? I would refrain from doing it for anyone else if so? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In general I wouldn't do that. Refer to WP:TALK#Personal talk page cleanup and WP:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. While you might think you were being helpful, most editors would have a problem with you doing that. At the very least Jy Sandford might object to the manner in which you archived their page, specifically that you didn't do a particularly good job of it. Please refer to User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo for one of the ways of setting up automated archiving. But seriously if they didn't want the discussion to be on their user talk any longer it's up to them. TarnishedPath^talk 14:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

ok yep thanks won't happen again. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northrop B-2 Spirit 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to make contact? Require some assistance re JLN Buybuybye (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you'd like some help regarding JLN, I can certainly help! DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do I just share my contact details here? Buybuybye (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would probably be better if you just left any questions you may have here as opposed to contact details as I think it's against wikipedia rules to make contact details available to the public DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

TT's Media staffer has updated the JLN significantly to reflect negatively on the JLN. I would like to discuss the process to update the page to be more balanced. Buybuybye (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok ill take a look and get back to you. If required i will contact wikipedia admins and Tammy Tyrells electorate office themselves. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to confirm, which account do you believe is the staffers? Jaycoopersydney? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes Jay Thorogood-Cooper is TT Media Officer Buybuybye (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Parliamentary address book lists Jay Cooper as Media & Policy Officer - Sen T Tyrrell Buybuybye (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Buybuybye, I can't see that person listed when I look at https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=300639 or https://www.directory.gov.au/commonwealth-parliament/senators/tasmania/senator. Can you advise where you are getting that information from? TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Ive just looked at his respective LinkedIn page. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaytcooper/?originalSubdomain=au which he has posted job applications on behalf of tyrell and also says he works in that role for Senator Tyrell DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Buybuybye, I have added a message to Jay T. Coopers talk page at Jaycoopersydney DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have that information from a JL staffer who has access to internal address book - but cannot independently confirm Buybuybye (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Buybuybye, please read WP:OUTING. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Can I / sHould I delete that reference? Buybuybye (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Buybuybye, I don't think you need to do anything given the LinkedIn, but please be aware for future reference as if that LinkedIn wasn't in existence you would have been releasing private informaton. If you want to be sure you can go to WP:OVERSIGHT and click the link at the end of "The fastest way to request oversight is to email the oversight team". TarnishedPath^talk 03:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Surface Fleet Review, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:2024 police activities in Australia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Northrop B-2 Spirit you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Surface Fleet Review 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Surface Fleet Review you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Surface Fleet Review and Talk:Surface Fleet Review/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Surface Fleet Review you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Surface Fleet Review for comments about the article, and Talk:Surface Fleet Review/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeadlyRampage26. It has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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.

Spicy (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, DeadlyRampage26,

You used your sockpuppet, Potato1942, to commit vandalism on the articles of politicians and about political parties that you disagree with. When this block is over, please don't continue to carry out this POV editing or it could result in a subsequent block. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion but please edit this project with a neutral point of view. This is an encyclopedia, not an online discussion forum. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whilst I am blocked (for legitimate reasons tho, I was being a dickhead whilst drunk), I will need to feed my wikipedia addiction and as such I will somehow try to make some edits here to paste over to the article when unblocked. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DeadlyRampage26, perhaps your sandbox would be a better place? TarnishedPath^talk 10:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

They can't edit their sandbox while blocked. I would suggest using a Word document or similar. I personally don't care very much but many admins do not think a blocked user should be using their talk page for anything besides a block appeal. Spicy (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

We do not. (in my Spock voice) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

PS- pastebin.com can also work as a sandbox -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks guys ill remove this when i get back from work DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey idk if any of you guys will be able to answer this, but is there a reason my IP block keeps getting extended? When will it be unblocked? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, I only ask because I was hoping to create an alt which I could use in the interim (before my main is unblocked) to beef up my administration articles and create Premiership of Jeremy Rockliff. I do regret the socking and it isn't gonna happen again. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't be attempting to edit at all while your block is in place per WP:EVASION. Not sure if that it was you are suggesting. TarnishedPath^talk 06:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I'm sure. You are blocked, regardless of what account or IP you try to use. You keep resetting the IP block which is in place to prevent your stated purpose of evading your block. It's poor form to ask for permission to sock puppet when you are blocked for sock puppetry. What TarnishedPath said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Spicy: Given user's attempts to evade the block, should the duration be extended? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok yep I misunderstood DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The entire point of being blocked is that you (personally as an individual) can't edit for a period of time, why would it be ok to jump on a different account and keep editing? GraziePrego (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Particularly when the block is a result of jumping onto different accounts to hide that they personally have been engaging in vandalism. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

yeah now that It's put out like that I do feel like a retard. Sorry for making you guys explain it. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The IP block is working as intended. You are not allowed to edit from any other account or IP while your main account is blocked. On that note, Yeetasaur123 is confirmed and blocked. Spicy (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reported at WP:SPI for visibility. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ok then I'm sorry DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for starting this article. Should it be titled December 2024 Melbourne synagogue attack, as it happened on 6 December? Wikishovel (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

oh absolutely I totally missed thst when I created it DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do this again. TarnishedPath^talk 08:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I don't understand why we shouldn't update it to the recent policy platform, would it be better to add it with further context? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not once does ACT Labor's Policy Platform state that its objective is "implementing Socialism throughout the ACT".

It does state that:

"Objectives

4. Labor aims to create a fairer society for all Australians by ensuring that all policies and initiatives promote:

5. Equity - redressing and eliminating the unequal distribution of resources and power;

6. Equality - ensuring the equal exercise of political, industrial and legal rights;

7. Participation - involving people in the decisions which affect their lives; and

8. Access - ensuring that each person has the opportunity and means to participate."

Which supports what was already there.

I shouldn't need to explain to you what was wrong with your edit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully, if you read that you would notice that right above that is in big words 'Socialism is the goal of ACT Labor' DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. That's a heading. We don't use headings as sourcing for content in articles. WP:HEADLINES covers that.
2. Even if we didn't have WP:HEADLINES, "Socialism – the Goal of the ACT Labor" /= "implementing Socialism throughout the ACT".

TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok i wasn't aware of that rule – but thanks for letting me know. And yeah i could have phrased that better DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

or just updated the reference and left the rest alone as it was already supported? TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited City of Hobart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anna Reynolds.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply