and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! – NJD-DE (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice; might you have just mentioned this on the talk page before defacing the article? See WP:FAOWN regarding courtesy (which is kinda common sense I think). Anyway, I will work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that you're referring to and which I had no idea that it existed, doesn't mention templates, it only refers to significant changes to texts and images. Anyway, the one policy that I'm aware of is, WP:NOBITING. Have fun in your research! SpaceEconomist192 10:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged all unsourced statement at the article for you to cite before the reviewer will review it and maybe quick fail it. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:10C0:A4A8:DAC8:9B11 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Resplendent quetzal 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 VickKiang -- VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. VickKiang can continue reviewing. It might take some days, but I will eventually apply the changes. SpaceEconomist192✐ 18:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I will continue reviewing, was taking a semi-wikibreak but will resume. I've added some suggestions and is checking the distribution and habitat section, more will come. VickKiang (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that you are having health issues per your user page. Hope that all is well soon, and no rushing for the Resplendent quetzal GA- feel free to continue anytime you are better, and many thanks again:) VickKiang (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Will you still be doing the GA for Resplendent quetzal? I'm sorry to hear you have health issues, but there's still paraphrasing and lots of suggestions to do. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Resplendent quetzal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Resplendent quetzal for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of VickKiang -- VickKiang (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Resplendent quetzal
On 22 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Resplendent quetzal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that killing a resplendent quetzal(pictured) was a crime in Aztec and Maya law? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Resplendent quetzal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Resplendent quetzal), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
National Animals list
Why did you undo my modification ? Soofio (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to José Cobo Cano. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ASUKITE 17:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
June 2023
Hello, I'm SLBedit. I noticed that you recently removed content from Derby de Lisboa without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. So, you decided to ignore reliable sources?SLBedit (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another edit like this and you'll be blocked sitewide, not just partially. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's exactly wrong about the edit? Saying a user to watch clouds is considered an offense?! That's quite an overreaction. SpaceEconomist192✐
Saying In the meantime, I hope you go outside and watch some clouds as you desperately need is a personal attack and is completely unacceptable. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was merely a constructive suggestion, since the user in question has been extensively pushing its bias towards Sport Lisboa and Lisboa (SLB) and rival clubs articles and as a matter of fact as been warned multiple times in the past and even blocked. I do regret engaging with articles about such a low form of entertainment as is association football, they all deserve to be stubs; so I would appreciate if my block could be extended indefinitely regarding association football articles. Many thanks. SpaceEconomist192✐
Additionally after getting blocked for blatant edit warring, you then choose to go to the other editors page and blame them for getting both of you blocked. This shows a complete lack of self awareness. You got yourself blocked by edit warring, not the other editor. And considering the other edit warring you seem to be doing elsewhere I'm surprised it wasn't a site wide block. Canterbury Tailtalk 12:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit warring was of uttermost necessity to prevent a WP:NPOV problem on the article. I was solely stating that the other user was the one who brought the admins attention but I never denied responsability of my block and I'm aware that I'm the reason for getting myself blocked so please refrain from WP:NPA or you might be the next one blocked. I'm not engaging in any kind of edit war anywhere else and that's just blatant defamation. SpaceEconomist192✐
...and speaking of talk pages, as you haven't commented at Talk:Derby de Lisboa yet, I assume you have lost the interest in that topic. That's perfectly fine, I'll just expect you to use the talk page before joining it again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding List of largest empires, I cannot engage in a more in-depth discussion about the sources since I no longer have access to The Wikipedia Library. I also do not wish to engage in any association football article since it's full of fanaticism; a couple of mere passages describing the derby as "the biggest" in some random football articles written by SLB fans is certainty not enough to prove such status, if none of the admins nor SLBedit can see that then I won't bother with it either. I already dig a hole for myself by responding to all these comments and now there's three admins on top of me; I'll resort to simply edit birds articles. SpaceEconomist192✐
José Cobo Cano, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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.
Hi, just to let you know that while the IP on regional power might be in the wrong, you're currently past 3 reverts on that article. Per WP:3RR I advise you don't revert any further and wait for someone else to revert after the IP is blocked, otherwise you might inadvertently be blocked too. Take care. — Czello(music) 10:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't do more than warning, especially after a recent edit warring block. Thanks Czello. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsensical block; the vandalism exemption on WP:3RRNO should be widened to include disruptive edits, doesn't make sense that a user gets blocked for reverting a clear troll. I'm reviewing a GA nomination, now I can't proceed with it... SpaceEconomist192✐ 12:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The central point of the three-revert rule is to prevent this type of excuses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Regarding the GA nomination or whatever you had been working on, the block is intentionally sitewide, yes. My usual approach is a partial block from editing the specific article as a clearly preventative measure. I rarely even mention the three-revert rule and just check if there has been edit warring or not. In this one specific exceptional case here, I have explicitly referred to the three-revert rule in the block description and chose a non-partial block because neither a two-week partial block nor a clear warning prevented you from continuing. If the only way to make this behavior stop is to prevent you from contributing entirely for a while, that's unfortunate but mostly alternative-less. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators instead of protecting content creators who have a good record of complying with Wikipedia policies, no they hostilize and alienate them, that inevitably creates a feeling of resentment and surprise, surprise after so much estrangement they will escalate their actions; that's how you create long-term abusers.
A 2 week-block due to mere edit warring for a first time offense was a grand exaggeration, there were better course of actions that could be taken, like a warning or an attempt to resolve the content dispute through a third-party. Poor policymaking is at the heart of many blocks too, it was consensual that the IP was being disruptive in their edits. I'm not going to submit to stirrers like those, so you might want to extend my block. SpaceEconomist192✐ 14:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Persecutory delusion 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 Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Persecutory delusion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Persecutory delusion for comments about the article, and Talk:Persecutory delusion/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:
We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!
And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.
Thanks for signing up for the drive, and I hope to see you reviewing! Vaticidalprophet 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
