Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Previously, this was assessed A class. Though, the military Wikiproject says that To receive an A-Class rating, a candidate article must undergo the formal military history A-Class review process. Could you please tell me where’s the discussion, I unfortunately couldn’t find any here. I’ve reassessed it to B now as there are sources that are not RS (ref 22, 38, 40, 46). If I’ve made a mistake and there’s a discussion, please let me know and ping me! Many thanks for your help. VickKiang (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang about which page you are talking? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've clearly linked the page above, see this, many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang got it now. If you use rater, you will see that it's near to 97% scope for A class. You can nominate for A class. Or I shall? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good now, but next time please assess A class after nomination in the WikiProject. You can nominate it, it's all right, but usually A class has a higher requirement than GA, so consider doing the latter if you are a major contributor. Otherwise, happy editing, thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang I am now removing the YouTube, IMDB refs and will work on that article. I liked the article so, want to work on that. :) _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang I forgot the article name. Do you support Operation Bajrang for A-Class which is nominated by others in A-Class review? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t add Gaming Trend for review, on the sources page for video games, it’s considered unreliable. See this discussion. On the previous edit, I accidentally rv the edit too quickly before I finished writing the summary, so in the rv reason, “Gaming Trend” was displayed as “Ga”, sorry for the error. Thanks, and have a good day! VickKiang (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang for Reception section we need negative reviews too, otherwise it would be promotional article. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be reliable first, and due weight considered. I don't see why you are adding unreliable refs, they aren't helpful. The refs provided have criticisms which I have expanded, it mentions that the components and game system received criticism. IMO adding unreliable refs aren't helpful, the reliable refs have critiques that were added in lede, do you have an issue on NPOV? If so, we can discuss, but IMO adding unreliable refs doesn't help. VickKiang (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang we have other reliable sources, from news search, to avoid the primary source. We should go for those. I was in hurry to balance the reception. Thanks for reverting. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all coverage are welcome, but I recommend you read the ref reliability lists, so next time unreliable ones (per consensus, I actually don't think Gaming Trend is that bad, but generally unreliable is the listing, so IMO that should be followed). By the way, reliable coverage of games for BTG is low, so all help are welcome! VickKiang (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang low reliable, unreliable sources are highlighted in my settings. Hence It's easy for me to cite. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relooking, I still find your edits confusing. You said that Dicebreaker, a generally reliable one, was an ad, but the marginally reliable GeekDad, a blog and primary source per WP page, is reliable? Per the review, Disclosure: GeekDad received a copy of this game for review purposes, so how is that indepedent but Dicebreaker isn't? VickKiang (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang unless the consensus marked as closed with Admin's comment, consensus doesn't doesn't say final about reliability. For example, Republic TV is an unreliable source in Wikipedia. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what is reliable or unreliable if the consensus is not accurate? By your own judgement on the reliability? Only Request for Comments need formal closures, others don't, so do you consider all other discussions as having no value as "consensus doesn't say final about reliability"? Yes, our opinions differ, and as GeekDad is not generally reliable, only marginally reliable, I only did a better ref tag, but I totally disagree with the statement, and I certainly don't want an edit war, as you are certainly a good faith editor. Many thanks for your contributions! VickKiang (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: The image will clarify you.

Red marks are not reliable. Yellow depends on the contributor of the article. Not marked can be used for citation. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I returned, but IMO your argument is contradicative. I will try to explain in two parts.

1. The colours are based on consensus on RSP, most discussions don't have formal closures. An example is The New Yorker, which doesn't have any formal closures. This IMO directly contradicts your statement ("consensus doesn't say final about reliability"), but all of your arguments are based on that.

2. It does not say that sources that are white should are reliable. RSP says A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is directly contrary IMO to your assumption that white sources are reliable. In fact, the script points out:

It does not cover every unreliable source out there. It is actually fairly bad at dealing with offline sources, like books and magazines. It does not answer whether a source should be used or not. It does not understand context. See common cleanup and non-problematic cases below for details. It is not perfect. See limitations below for details. See also the first 8 points of the CiteWatch disclaimer. It says that it is based on RSP, but that is only for a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. So this should not be the end of it all, I find it contradicative to me that you doubt the consensus that I linked, but only rely on this (which is very helpful, and thanks Headbomb for such a great script, but it only covers some sources). Concluding, I think you should look more at RSP and the guidelines before forming a conclusion. Many thanks for your help, I don't think this discussion will be going anywhere, since we both are pretty inexperienced editors, I have posted these at RSN, but please familiarise with the previous links. VickKiang (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible Meatpuppeting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopnendu Mohanty. Thank you..Eesan1969 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Bonadea. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. "I'm just curious why you didn't check the refs properly" is an assumption of bad faith.

Please also stop calling your fellow editors "senior editors". There are no senior editors. bonadea contributions talk 20:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad. Curiosity should not be bad faith. I didn't attack you but asked you about the removal as I remember, once you said that a census village should have some extra info. So I tried to add some extra info for the notability of WP:GEOLAND. I'm going easy by creating AfC drafts about places, with book and news coverages, and with large areas and populations. Also, I'm concerned about COI, hence I haven't edited my parents' ancestor's villages which (both) are somehow well known to me though I haven't visited those two villages since my childhood as my grandfather moved to the capital of Meghalaya in the early 1960s (too before even my birth). About stay cool, you are mostly correct bonadea. Sometimes I lose my temper when something well sourced are removed, as it happened in Pottu Amman (Tamil militant), in which I added tons of book sources instead of Blogspot refs, but all of my edits were reverted. Can you please check that page? That page's revert really edit-war to me as citing book sources are more reliable than Blogspot blog sources. However, you are an experienced editor, so I honour your removal of the concerned village page, so I didn't revert. This statement is purely in good faith. :) _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk

Your recent editing history at Zubeen Garg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care who's right. You're already past 3RR, and this does not fall under any of the exemptions. Next person to revert gets blocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin Please look at the history here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zubeen_Garg&action=history. I only fought against vandalism with good faith. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is NOTVANDALISM. It is a content dispute. Discuss it on the article's talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin I wasn't much aware about WP:3RR. Please consider me for this time. I won't do it again and I promise that with good faith. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, explain what you did here and why you're editing long blocked users talk pages for no reason. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae moreover, in Douglas W. Arner page, 13 refs in the opening line are not excessive? You think those 13 refs are aren't CITEKILL? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding a longer template to an already excessive line of sources is disruptive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I only added excessive link template for 13 refs and notability tag for refs like his own college profile, Bloomberg profiles(which is invalid reference) and some more valueless refs. If you think revert is rational, I won't touch such promo things again. Regards and with good faith _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So...remove them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae No, I won't touch that page. As per my common sense, the page creator has a COI with the page, as I read the article and the profile photo is clear evidence (695x740 px size) and crystal clear that it was provided by the article subject. :) _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Praxidicae: I was trying to cite with refs, and saw Anecdotal evidence has it that they are trained to ambush up to five hundred enemy combatants with only two commandos employing M18 Claymore anti-personnel land mines facing the killing zone of the planned ambush route and triggered by remote control. in the article which is blatant Hoax. There is no military combat history where 2 commandos killed 500 enemies as claimed by the article. If it is not Hoax, then thank you for the revert. Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk

Google Translate is not reliable, and it is not a good idea to link to machine translations of sources, as you did here. If a reader wants to run a source through translation software they can do so, but we shouldn't link to a machine translated version instead of the actual source. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea no issue, I shall remove the ref, as removing 1 link doesn't impact the weight of the article subject. Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states is a project for Indian states only, not for settlements within those states. e.g. Draft talk:Tal Pathar shouldn't be added to that wikiproject. You can (and should) add it to the project of the particular state (Assam in this case). 04:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824 Ok. I won't repeat this mistake. Thanks for informing. Can you please review the WP:GEO drafts pending for many days? Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry NeverTry4Me, I'm not part of WP:AFC. I don't think you should keep submitting it for AFC, before a reviewer has looked at it. I'd assume that older submissions get higher priority and by re-submitting you are pushing this draft back to the end of the queue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824 Thanks for replying. I'd assume that older submissions get higher priority; actually not so. The Draft:G Bidai is pending for months. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, you last submitted it on 27th June. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824, that was because some editors with reviewer rights edited the page but didn't either declined or accepted. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824, BTW, Wikiproject Assam is Inactive. Hence, no point adding that tag anymore. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the individual state wikiprojects are dead. But, they could get members who could re-activate them. That said, even if i don't add that wikiproject, someone else probably would (at least once it comes to article space). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you did this again for Draft:Lapalang. I've fixed it. Another point: I think you can move pages to mainspace yourself. You don't need to submit to AFC. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft. Please continue the AFC submissions for your articles that were draftified by someone else. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824 I am restricted till 7 September. Moving to mainspace is under restriction, only AfC submission is allowed. Rest about the concern you have raised, you too created many pages with the same tag. Why blame me alone while Wiki suggested that for the improvement of speedy review? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point about you being restricted. I can't understand the rest. Please explain "you too created many pages with the same tag" What tag are you talking about? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 As per your Please explain "you too created many pages with the same tag" What tag are you talking about?, just one example is here. The rest is here. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i've created pages, including talk pages. So have you. That's not the problem at all. What i was trying to tell you was: Please don't add the Indian states template to articles that are clearly not Indian states. You can and should add relevant wikiproject templates to all articles/drafts that you create. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824 you don't review Draft:G Bidai, then why you are using the New page reviewer right as per this? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers is for articles in the mainspace. WP:AFC is a separate group that looks at drafts, that are requested to be moved to mainspace. There are folks who work on both, but not me. Hopefully, this explains the situation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao Thank you for reviewing. More AfC drafts are pending, and would be helpful to clear the backlog. Thank you again. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao kindly check the Draft:Sondha please. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DIVINE thank you for your precious time. Can you please check whether the Draft:Sondha is eligible or not? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓  DIVINE  17:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NeverTry4Me

Thank you for creating Lohitpur.

User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

please add a ref for the population figure

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|MPGuy2824)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824 Why you are not seeing the ref for population? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer: I meant a ref from the Indian census department. i don't think indiagrowing.com is considered as a WP:RS -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DIVINE Can you please look at Draft:Ajmal Foundation and suggest me what's wrong with the draft. It has been modified after the first rejection, but yet pending. Seems NGOs are hard here get approved. I got that NGO googling around for some random AfC Drafts. Have no knowledge in person about the NGO, whatever is written, found through Google search. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon as per WP:GEOLAND, the Draft should have been approved. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeverTry4Me - You appear to be writing this comment in the form of a rebuke or criticism, which I do not think is warranted. I did not decline the draft, but took a preliminary step that was necessary before it could be accepted, by disambiguating it. I started checking whether GEOLAND was satisfied, but I then took a break from my computer for Real Life reasons, and found that when I had come back, the draft had been accepted. I don't see why you think I did anything wrong or should have done anything different. Your wording is critical. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon my sincere apology with good faith as that hurt you which I didn't intend for. For that review note, I thought the page wouldn't be approved. The thought came because some of my drafts are pending for months with such tags. I, in good faith, didn't mean any form of a rebuke or criticism. All was just my mistake as I didn't notice the disambiguation. I was just creating the page and googling for some extra info to add. This is my apology with good faith. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 23:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuity Thank you for approving the draft. Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DIVINE Thank you very much for your great efforts. More drafts are there. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert McClenon for so quick review. Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If a redirect is blocking acceptance of a draft, and the redirect is not related to the draft, please put a hatnote on the draft to the previous target of the redirect. You can see an example at the top at Nambla, taking the place of the redirect to the pedophile organization. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I am with some restriction to as per admin Deepfriedokra. As per the restriction I can only edit, not to land/go anywhere where I'm not called for and not to land any discussion where I'm not invited, create pages through AfC submission only. Hence, I'm creating pages through AfC submission. You can look at Operation Bajrang which I created through AfC submission. (more such pages I'm developing in my drafts.). I guess hatnote is not within my current right as I was warned for doing so a month before. Anyway, it's a pleasure to get assistance from you. I always like learning things, and your kind assistance helped me to learn some new things. Thanking you _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to put the hatnote on the draft that you are submitting. That is why I told you to look at Nambla. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Now I understand. Tons of thanks. Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shazia Wajahat (2nd nomination) and see you describe a citation as "fake". Later in the same procedure, you disparage a comment by another editor for not understanding you were referring to the citation and not the source. Your arguments might be better understood if you were using better descriptive wording. I would recommend using wording which allows you to make your point on the first pass (and without disparaging others for not understanding your IMHO poorly described point). I'm not saying you're wrong or acting badly. I'm suggesting you use more precise description in order to make your assertion more clear. BusterD (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD Thank you for notifying me. I have corrected the wording. Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayanc thanks for the review. Please have a look at Draft:G Bidai, Draft:Nagrijuli, Draft:Baganpara, Draft:Simlabari also. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casuarina Senior College (2nd nomination), you appear to be WP:BLUDGEONing other editors, making the AfD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's ironic that you accuse others of not looking at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which states that it is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Not only you are using it as an argument, you are accusing others of failing to apply it, which of course they should not. I feel the article is at best borderline, but your behavior on this one seems overly emotional and is not conducive to a collaborative discussion. Jacona (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears you are editing in violation of unblock conditions specified at [1]. Pinging Deepfriedokra. Jacona (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Bloody Hell. Thanks, @Jacona:. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just starting a second AfD on the same subject so soon after the first one is disruptive and I think violates a guideline somewhere. And that's not a bludgeon, it's a war hammer. You are perilously close to an indefinite block. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If possible kindly close the AfD on my behalf as the nomination is withdrawn, with my statement "I do hereby withdraw the nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casuarina Senior College (2nd nomination) with good faith and request a rewrite and ref improve to support the inline contents." Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 21:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, I just realized that I have been blocked on that AfD page only.(while trying to click submit button on a citation at Juan Carlos Onetti page. Thank you @Deepfriedokra: for this block. I have accepted this block as I deserved it. Doing citation work, I had gone so far that I used to accept the WP:BURDEN of adding refs in every unreferenced article. And that shouldn't be a problem to Wiki, I believe. I am enjoying adding resources things because it is helping me to read things. Thank you again for blocking me from the page.
If possible kindly close the AfD on my behalf as the nomination is withdrawn, with my statement "I do hereby withdraw the nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casuarina Senior College (2nd nomination) with good faith and request a rewrite and ref improve to support the inline contents." Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 21:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Deepfriedokra: done as intended. I shall stop taking citation burden, staying away from the page, and leaving it to other editors. That would be the best for the page.

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Casuarina Senior College have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. The Banner talk 11:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner That is not vandalism, Your coordinate doesn't identify the article subject in any maps. Please refrain from misleading geocoded. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It points straight to the building intended. So the coordinates are valid. The Banner talk 12:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I have redacted my comment with good faith and tender my apology with good faith. Perhaps this is my last message to anyone in Wiki. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Theroadislong (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of creating, submitting and accepting your own draft you can directly create article via mainspace. Just my personal thoughts tho' .... DIVINE (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DIVINE: Oh, you are back? I saw none of you active there, Hence, I asked Admins about the pending drafts and did accordingly. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DIVINE you must be happy now for the reverts. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NeverTry4Me As far as I know you're the good editor while creating drafts. I no longer hold AFC rights any other rights now. So, you might have not seen me there reviewing Drafts. And there's no reason for me being sad or happy because I just thought to suggest you that's all. Happy editing, DIVINE (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DIVINE I'm blocked. Probably I shall quit Wiki as repeated blocks damaged by entire editing. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Justiyaya was presumably unaware that you are prohibited from publishing your own drafts, or forgot this. You, as the person under the editing restriction, are the one expected to know it and abide by it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I don't think so as Justiyaya was assigned my mentor after my first block and I used to ask many things while editing. I was writing my reply to deepfriedokra's talk page, but I got the message that again it happened. This is really disappointing. Particularly, when I do good work none appreciates it. For example, I have added more than 2000 citations to unsourced article's claims, but none even appreciated that nor anyone gave me a citation barn. But if I do a single mistake, users use to jump as I have just made Wiki invisible from the web. Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the geocode of Casuarina Senior College is -12.3834697, 130.8740063, but Banner reverted that too. If my intention was to disrupt, I wouldn't have added "search keyword" based unreferenced section, which is usually not practiced by most editors leaving it hard to search and find citations, for ease of finding resources. I don't understand while my contributions are really working to get citations, how it becomes a disruption for some editors. Thanks for reverting AfC pages. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Deepfriedokra: I can't reply on your talk page because of this. Hence accept the reply regarding your talk page mentions. I can't accuse Justiyaya as they were assigned as my mentor after the very first unblock by you. When confused, if I don't ask my mentor or IRC help channels, then where? I first went to IRC help channels, (hope you have access to logs), but none were alive there to reply, then I asked Justiyaya. Further, my edit habits pushed again me to improve Casuarina Senior College issues (mentioned above). If improving is disruptive, then what I have left here to do? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you click on the geolocation, Google Maps put the pointer on about the centre of the school building. If that is incorrect, I really like to know what you expect from geolocation. Do you know that there are multiple options for the notation of the geolocation? See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Implementation details. The Banner talk 00:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Your geocode brought to this-> 61 Parer Dr Via, Moil Cres, Moil NT 0810, Australia. About your allegation of WP:DE, please check the edit history properly. Adding sources, adding "search keywords" are not disruptive. You are accusing me without checking my citation adding history. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the school's address, NT4M. That said, the unblock condition violation wasn't being wrong about the coördinates. Everyone makes mistakes. The violation was using the edit summary "removed WP:DISRUPTIVE"—a personal attack given the lack of any disruption—in removing The Banner's explanation of what you did wrong. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: my mistake was I was taking the sole burden to improve the page (page history about citations), as none did. Everyone just opined and left, but none even tried to improve the page with a single citation. How it is disruptive if I add citations, use "search keywords" for ease of finding sources, and trying to find the exact geocode as I see the college on map(but was failing to grab the exact geocode)? Why does none look at my citations which improved many unsourced articles? None cared to encourage me for those contributions but seems everyone here just trying to grab a mistake made by me. If a mistake is considered disruptive and led to a block, then please block me permanently. I always said, I make mistakes but do not repeat them (as I didn't edit further after Banner's work) and my edits are here to improve. While trying to improve an article, often mistake happen to everyone. Such repeating blocks are pushing me back, and increasing stalkers. What is the outcome of a repeated block? Just preventing me to improve articles!!! If improving or trying to improve articles here is disruptive and reason to get blocked, then I must be blocked forever, so it should be a lesson to me and others who are improving articles. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was black letter restriction. A bright line to not be crossed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I might have unknowingly crossed some restrictions, but I, being aggressive to improve an article shouldn't be considered as WP:DE. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin By the "edit summary "removed WP:DISRUPTIVE" I meant "I made some wrong near to disruptive and as alerted I have stopped and removing this as I don't want a continuation of a discussion of this." But it is understood otherwise, which is obvious as I should have added the proper line no matter-how long it goes. Had I been disruptive, I wouldn't have added citations to the page and aggressively trying to grab the exact geocode. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is all quite contentious. It is not the conduct I was hoping for. Unblock conditions, just as a reminder-- "All new article creations through AfC and vetted by AfC before main spacing. One edit per day per AfD thread. And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A week for the second unblock condition violation in so short a time. 1 week is quite mild. Please take time to reflect on all of this. Note to reviewing admin-- let it ride. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra If not considered for unblock, this block count will push me for 8 more months. Better I shall get out of Wiki accepting blocks as the reward for my contribution. :( _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra I have already undid that edit, you can see that I have undid, further while I have not repeated any mistake (except trying to improve the Casurina college), a warning would have stop me. I have never crossed the limit you set for me. The 3 AfC things was also a mistake for which I shall not be blamed for as I provided the discussion link with Justiyaya. Had they adsiced me to not do, as myself said I don't want(the discussion link is proof), the mistake wouldn't have happened. I haven't used any non-encyclopedic words, instead many user still using abusive for me (if nonsensical word is allowed here, then none is abusing me). The IRC help channels are evident, how I use to take help before doing any edit, where I get confused). What more I can say! Every editors with good contribution expects a reputation or encouragement, but don't want blocked. My bad, I'm not lucky to get any encouraging words from anyone for improving Betty Grable, Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof and many others which were completely unsourced. Now this block compelled me to think, "Why I joined Wiki?" _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. I recuse from consideration of this block, and further discussion serves no purpose. Please reflect on your conduct. A member of the unblock team sill review this with a fresh perspective. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the block before making the replies to the questions on my talk page. Although I might have known 5 months ago due to a mentorship module question on March 25th, where I might've clicked into this thread on this page at that time. If I did, I have forgotten. Although you should have probably notified me of the editing restriction when asking for the reviews. You only said in the section that it is because you "don't want to touch [your] own submissions" and did not mention the editing restriction, nor did you do so in the two mentorship module questions that you've asked. I don't think I have been notified of the restriction, or gave any indication that I was aware of it. Apologies for not responding to this earlier, I didn't get a ping from anyone and was only aware of this from Special:Diff/1102663108 showing up on my watchlist. Justiyaya 11:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a thought to leave Wikipedia for several concerns.
First user Onel5969 brought too much baseless allegations of COI which they failed to prove/link to anything, then user Hemantha and user Djm-leighpark, (those harassment kicked me to such a condition where I was not getting time to reply user EC_L_'s comment on my talk page for which EC_L_ blocked me for WP:CIR) and now user Praxidicae (who used the word "nonsensical" for me and that is not abusive for any Admin as their behaviours are justified no matter how foul they use) and user The_Banner (doesn't even care to reply to an apology).
I really tired of repeated blocks, some are really not necessary. The Blocks pushed me to nowhere now.
In my edits, I contributed several unsourced articles with citations. But none even encouraged me for such works by a single word. Those, who never stopped blaming me, only waited for my mistakes so that I should be banned. None ever even compared my good contributions with just a few mistakes. I haven't completed the goal of 8000 edits (when blocked first around my edit counts below 2K) by commenting on others' talk pages or accusing others. I did it by adding more than 4K+ citations(mostly from books with valid methods).
Whatever my good contribution was, never acknowledged, but I got the reward of repeated blocks. No regret for this reward of "block", just I'm sorry that I couldn't finish some big drafts(pending works) for which I was working (this will always make me ashamed). But, thank you Onel5969, Praxidicae, The_Banner and many more as your allegations are served.

Thank you Tamzin for the reward you gave to me (not matter what is the block length, but it sent a red flag to everywhere).
But, I must thank Deepfriedokra, Robert_McClenon, BusterD, and the Wiki IRC help channels' users, in good faith, for giving me opportunity to learn a lot of things here.

Wiki admins are volunteers, and I also volunteered only. Justice denied to me. Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life is not always fair and has rules for a reason.

Ow, and your "apology" came in the middle of my night. Unfortunately, it did not sound like a sincere apology. But I wish you luck with your other endeavours. The Banner talk 08:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Please tech me how should I write a sincere apology as my apology "I have redacted my comment with good faith and tender my apology with good faith." did not sound like a sincere one to you. I love to learn. I'll accept your opinion in good faith. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner I apologized you at your afternoon time, and at your evening time you are claiming it's midnight on your end? OMG, as if the world doesn't know about every country's time. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The message was signed (for me) as "03:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)". Usually, at that time I am sound asleep and unable to respond. At this time, it is 10:43 am here. I can understand that you live half the world away, but keep that in mind yourself too. The Banner talk 09:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner and your reply was at 00:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC). Isn't it a joke? Or mock?? Anyone on this earth can find your time by "Australia time now". _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner as your intention is wisely served, please stop this vague. We shouldn't garbage Wiki with vague. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Messages are signed at the local time of the editor on whose page the edit is published, not a standardised time. And sorry, I do not live in Australia but Ireland, as you can see on my user page.

But you prefer to continu with personal attack. The concerns about WP:CIR and WP:NPA are real and serious. The Banner talk 10:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner "Ireland time now" is 11:43 am. Keep accusing me so that I give up Wiki. XTools is evident who is purposed for what. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And signed to me as 10:46, as UTC does not take Daylight Saving Time into account. The Banner talk 10:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner thank you for compelling me to leave Wiki. (no more going to reply). Period. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Your message on my talk page Information icon Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Casuarina Senior College have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. The Banner talk 11:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)" is not peronal attack, but my reply "That is not vandalism-redacted" is personal attack? Wow!!! Great justification I have ever seen. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]