User talk:Can I Log In/Archive 1

Archive 1

February 2020

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm referring to this edit. Waggie (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say this. The minute right after, someone made a similar edit. Someone else reverted my edit later. No worries, I would've added citations when available. Can I Log In (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's not a race, please remember that the onus is on you to add the source when you add the content. Thanks! Waggie (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your warning

Why did you leave this warning on an experienced user's Talk page? I see no justification for it whatsoever.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It was regarding this edit. Didn't see any good reason for an undo. Can I Log In (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your not seeing any good reason is not a justification for the warning. DoRD's edit summary was a detailed explanation of what they did. Be more careful next time before templating a long-time user.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb. No good reason? Did you not read my edit summary (while USA Today may not be sports-centric, a reference to CBS Sports was also removed), which was in response to the previous edit (USA Today is not a sports-centric news site)? The removal of a whole paragraph, only half of which was justified by the previous user's edit summary, was my reason for undoing it.

Here's a tip for the future: If you have questions about a user's edit, especially a user who has been around a while, it's typically better to just ask them about it on their talk page. Leaving a warning template like the one you left me is typically frowned upon. —DoRD (talk)​ 01:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledged and understood. Can I Log In (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Silly message

Is this some kind of joke? 51.7.23.28 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Tools

Hi Can I Log In, I've noticed you doing a lot of RCP and undoing vandalism. Given this, you may want to use some tools, such as twinkle. Twinkle lets you rollback edits faster and give warnings more quickly. I like your username btw. Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can I log in, you do not have sufficient edits to engage in counter-vandalism, and I strongly urge you not to make it easier for you to make mistakes by using Twinkle.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't understand the second part of your sentence, "I strongly urge you not to make it easier for you to make mistakes." Care to make it clearer on that? Can I Log In (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Tridwoxi suggested you use Twinkle to revert vandalism more easily. I don't think you're experienced enough to be reverting vandalism. Therefore, you shouldn't use Twinkle. I think you should spend your time building up experience by editing and improving articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to YBN (collective) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Can I Log In, you clearly didn't take my advice. Using Twinkle you restored vandalism that had been removed from an article by Cluebot. I'm now transforming my advice into a warning. If anything like this happens again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You should take the advice of more experienced users like those two over mine. Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have understood the mistake and the risk associated with using Twinkle. We are human beings. Assuming you are not a bot or an alien, you should know humans make mistakes, and learn from them. I have read the understood the adive given above. Can I Log In (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes we are, and I understand. Thank you for the work you have done. Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 04:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Campaignbox Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Hi - just a small heads up; when you leave a final reply to a semi-protected edit request, in the {{edit semi-protected}} template change the parameter |answered=no to |answered=yes otherwise the request stays live. If an editor is not happy, they can always reactivate the request, but by marking the response yes, it is removed from the backlog of work. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Got it. I just normally have left that to the requester. So even after any response like not done, partly done, I still mark a yes? I'll assume I do. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 23:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In: The editor handling the request is the one who will mark as answered; and yes, whatever reply you give, it needs to be changed because this is what removes it from the work queue. However, in terms of when you mark as answered, it's a case by case basis - the point of answering "yes" is that one is closing the request. It might be that a simple clarification can make the edit possible, so you could politely {{ping}} the editor to make some changes, leaving the answered parameter as "no"...and wait. They either clarify and you make the edit and close, they don't clarify in an appropriate way, so you refuse the edit and close (or ask again) or they don't respond within a reasonable time, so you close. I would also say, IMHO, edit-protected requests are usually (but not always) from inexperienced editors, so should be treated gently and assisted (in the case of IP requests it is possible these can come from long-standing experienced editors so should also be treated with respect). It should not be treated as a legal process, if the intention of the editor is clear and the request is reasonable and clearly within wikipedia policy, go ahead and make the change. I saw another one of your semi-edit request responses here, which I subsequently worked on - personally, I would say, you did not handle that incorrectly, but it was a very by the book response; the request was actually an important one given the proposed text, was already mentioned within the lead of the article and only took a minute or so to verify via references in the linked articles. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Signature

Can you please fix it? It is quite distracting. Thanks in advance. El_C 18:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:"Can you please make it smaller?" Does this satisfy? To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Smaller is better, yes. Thank you. El_C 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I dont understand what your signature means —usernamekiran (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you heard about this tool?

Hello, Can I Log In, I've noticed you answering protected edit requests. Thank you for helping out a visible and often-backed-up section of the site. Are you aware that there is a tool that makes answering these requests easier? editProtectedHelper creates a form on talk pages that allows you to generate templated responses and mark requests answered with one or two clicks. You might want to check it out. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

flotsam and jetsam in (recent) signature

Hi CILI,

here and here you added NOINDEX and NEWSECTIONLINK when you signed. I think there's something wrong with your signature. I've removed it from those two places, but could you look at the code for your sig when you get back? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Derpy derp that now has been fixed. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} [[User talk|(talk)]] 04:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That fixed that particular problem, but if you're open to unsolicited advice, that's a pretty confusing signature. Plus, as you can see, it's incorrect; you can't just copy/paste what you're saying to copy/paste, it gives a template error. I think everybody here knows how to ping; they probably don't need instructions inside your sig. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, WP:SIGAPP is policy: Avoid markup such as <big> [...] this is likely to disrupt the way that surrounding text displays. And it does. Thrice bigs, even moreso. ——SN54129 07:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. I dont want to pile-up on the advices/suggestions, or gang-up on you; but I was here earlier regarding the incorrect directions to ping in the signature. I was vague, and was going to follow-up later, but couldnt (apologies for that). So I feel sort of necessary to comment again. The {{reply to}} doesnt need to be substituted. The current mark-up/code of the signature also has a few problems like observed above, and on RfA talk page where it has been humorously labelled as sig with "steroid abuse". Simply put: Fancy signatures are totally okay, having messages is okay. But blinking signatures, extra big, difficult to read (for people with vision issues), distracting signatures, are a no-no. Also, some particular codes, and substitutions are also bad on technical levels. I would recommend you to decrease the size of signature, the code looks good to me. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Also, your abusing the subst function by substing User:Can I Log In/signature to give yourself a 273-character signature is a straightforward violation of WP:SIGLEN. (Given your "custom length signature" edit summary, you're obviously well aware that you're intentionally being disruptive, not accidentally slipping over the limit.) Knock it off. ‑ Iridescent 16:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your signature again

Nobody is likely to take much notice of you if you don't fix this now. Don't use large text, and don't order others to reply to you in a particular way. If you don't know how to fix those things then simply revert to the default signature. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

THE FIRST EVER REQUEST FOR DE-ADMINSHIP!

Hello, as prosecutor, I am required to notify you of THE FIRST EVER REQUEST FOR DE-ADMINSHIP! Otherwise, it would be void. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your editing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Xaosflux_2

Your editing here is disruptive. If three editors have undone your faux close of the RfA, that should be an indicator to stop. It's also fucking with my watchlist notices (and likely everyone else's as well) because the RfA keeps getting advertised, and then de-advertised because of your close. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: It's not intended to be disruptive. Okay, the watchlist thing I userstnad. The RfA in general, that part is a joke. I'll stop anything that is apparently disruptive. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 01:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC); edited 01:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes I'm aware that you were trying to be humorous, not disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop. You are allowed 10 april fools edits per year, and you are already over your allotment. Be careful not to be blocked for something this stupid. Natureium (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Natureium: I don't see anything about a limit in the rules. So the limit, where is this rule stated? {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 01:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Cabal Stuff

Please refrain from making edits that oppose the Cabal, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Can I Log In. Continuing to do so may get you eliminated from existence. If you would like to expose the existence of a Wikipedia deep state, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Can I Log In

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Can I Log In, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ——SN54129 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the page in question to your userspace at User:Can I Log In/Requests for de-adminship/Can I Log In, if you really feel it necessary to keep this drivel for some reason. Any attempt by you to move it back to project space is not going to end well. ‑ Iridescent 14:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I answered your question after my request on List of fandom names talk page

Hi. I am new here, not familiar with all that coded environment, not sure how to do requests and how to answer to editors who reviewed my request. So I thought may be I can answer you here? Sorry if it’s the wrong way to answer. I posted a request to include a fandom of Dimash Qudaibergen (he calls us “Dears” and we are very proud of this name and celebrate a Dears Day every January 30) in a list, but the answer of the first editor was that the reference I presented is not enough. The post you’ve read was my answer to that - I presented a list of links proving more my point (my original post is the one above if you take a look at the list of requests). I am not sure, is it enough or not. And what more of the proof may be than if people wear that word on their heads and hearts on his concerts, use it while communicating (just check the #dears), name their fan clubs that way? Sorry again, if I do it wrong, maybe you could help me do it right? Thank you in advance.Vera Kapinos (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears your request has been answered yesterday. Also, ​, if you reply back to a request that has been answerd and you want a reply back, you can reactivate your request by changing answered=yes to answered=no. That way, your request will be reactivated for someone to review it. So if I take a while (like I did), then someone else will review it. Can I Log In {{replyto}} (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Slow down

Please. Stop the April Fool's edits. I get that this is the one day a year you get to be especially silly, but you really don't seem to have the experience here to distinguish between "things people will likely find funny" and "things that will just annoy people." It makes you look immature, not funny. creffett (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You know, when you said slow down, we all slowed down. All the suddent, it's no funny anymore. It might go fast agian the in morning, so... {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 04:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's no longer 1 April. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

To put it less diplomatically than Primefac, cut out the disruption. It wasn't funny on April 1; it certainly isn't funny on April 2. And—as you've been repeatedly advised—will you please remove the garbage from your signature? You don't get to demand of other users how they choose to format their posts when replying to you. ‑ Iridescent 13:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the signature, At the very most you should use no more than 255 characters, and having a font size of 50% is a pretty big WP:ACCESS violation (in addition to just being really annoying to try and read). Primefac (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that you need to change your signature, and also agree with Iridescent that you need to do more than Primefac says. As well as keeping to the length and size limits you should not be telling other editors how to reply to you. I, as far as I can remember, have never used the {{replyto}} template and see no need to start doing so now, but that shouldn't exclude me from any discussion where you have taken part. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As a note regarding the ping, I've seen some users start their sig with something along the lines of {{replyto|Primefac}}, which indicates how they want people to reply. But either way, thank you for taking our concerns into consideration. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Can I Log In use of AWB without authorization. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have closed the thread with a formal warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to add onto this formal warning, if you circumvent an automated-editing rule such as this again in order to automate your edits without approval, you will be blocked indefinitely as an unauthorized bot. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please don't mess with RfD or other deletion templates, as you did in these edits. These templates are working as intended. If you would like to express an opinion about whether the redirect should be kept or not, you can participate in the discussion that the template links to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC close

Just a note that I've reverted your RfC close here, as you don't appear to be taking it seriously, and you're just counting votes. I'd recommend leaving it for someone with more experience. – bradv🍁 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, no I'm not counting the votes merely. I've summarized as a saw it. What further concern is there? {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you listed the numbers at the top, as if that was somehow the determining factor for how the RfC was to be closed. Secondly, your summaries of the arguments were rather dismissive of the time and effort people put into constructing them. It's fine to summarize arguments, but they must be respectful. Thirdly, what's with that weird writing at the end with a mix of upper- and lowercase letters? Is that a joke? Fourthly, the fact that I have to explain this to you in such detail is prima facie evidence that you don't have enough experience to close RfCs yet. Hence my recommendation that you leave it for someone else to close. I hope this helps. – bradv🍁 18:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If I closed it merely by a vote, then it would be "Vote count: (1/2/3) Option C" and no other statements. Clearly I didn't close it by the plain vote. For the summary of the arguments, nearly all of the Option A !votes had to do with "useful". So in a short summary, it was useful. Option B !votes were to move out of template space so readers wouldn't get confused between an article and a template. Option C, templates shouldn't be treated as articles. I'm not sure what was dismissive and disrespectful. The rest is irrelevant, but what matters how I addressed the consensus.
I appreciate constructive criticism and feedback, but I also think your closing revert was not warranted since nothing seemed excessively wrong. I'd think a closing review would be appropriate (which I think there is. I forgot where it is.) {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 19:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Can I Log In, I appreciate you trying to help. I can tell that you're doing your best to contribute in the ways that you find interesting, and I'm glad you're working on. I remember how excited I was to work in certain administrative areas when I first started editing as well. This is a discussion that would be difficult for anyone to close; I've been an active editor for well over half a decade now, and it would take me several hours of reading, contemplation, and writing to close this discussion. I hope you understand why other editors here are disappointed that you've closed this discussion, and in the manner that you have. Your summaries of the positions of the supporters of the three options were not representative of the actual opinions voiced, and can be perceived as disrespectful. Your closure did not demonstrate an understanding of the issues at play. You did not substantively address the discussion other than declaring simply that The main consensus here is to move them out of template space and preserve it. If you brought this for review at an administrative noticeboard, I wouldn't fancy your chances. And since you don't seem to be aware of that, I really don't think you should be closing discussions or working in similar areas for the time being. I don't mean that as criticism; it takes anyone a long time (years and years) to understand the norms and culture critical to engaging well in these areas. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. And if ever I do close another not so clear discussion, I will take these feedback into consideration when closing whether that's in an hour, tomorrow, months, years, whenever.
Of course, we all want to try something new, and it may not be what people want to expect at the end result even though we try to attempt to do it in good faith not intended to cause problems, like in this situation. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 19:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I've got a significant concern that you're completely incompetent and shouldn't be doing much more than playing with userboxes on your user page at this time. Nick (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC); edited 00:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nick, I'm not sure what part of WP:CIR you're referencing. Which of my last 500 major actions show me being incompetent? Please show and connect and make sure it's not in WP:CIRNOT. I'm waiting. And if you think all I should be doing is editing in my userspace, then how is that contributing to the encyclopedia? Please tell me and I'll take your advice. "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to ignore your advice and answer a COI edit request. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 19:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the dreadful closure above and the risk of an indefinite block for automated editing enough to question your competence ? Nick (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The "dreadful" closure was made in good faith not intended to cause problems. Of course, we all do things differently when we try to do it well. As for the unapproved automated editing, well 1 warning and done. If I ignore the warning, then that would mean I agree to be sanctioned. Since I am complying with the warning, no sanctions for the incident is neccessary.
You are citing non-chronic problems which were first time issues. If I were to cause problems intentionally, repeatedly, and severely, then sure my competence can be questioned. But my past behavior doesn't meet all three. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 19:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC); edited 00:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In I would hope you would take the feedback of the three veteran editors (now four with me) seriously. If you're upset by comments here (and I understand why you would be) you can always step away and come back to edit when you're in a better frame of mind. The best way to show your competent is to have your next edits show that competency rather than continuing to reply here. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do strongly acknowledge and take the feedback that I receive from the admins or anyone.
I do wonder all a sudden, where are these uninvolved admins coming from? Do you watch the talk pages of recent problematic users? I assume this is the case. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 20:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think they watch list of ongoing RfCs, or recently closed RfCs, or RfCs whose closure has been undone; or all of these. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

this reply by an admin and these replies by the same admin here show something different. And plus, do they even go on the talk pages of users who closed RfCs (if uninvolved with the closer)? {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw that you edited bbb23's userpage, and I checked your contributions in an attempt to find out why. That's how I found this RfC close. The other admins here may have been drawn by the same edit, or by your post on my talk page. Admins tend to watch each other's talk pages, and an edit to an admin's user page is always going to draw a fair amount of attention. – bradv🍁 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OH regarding that edit, it was including subcats. So I edited it to remove the subcat counts. Well later, it was reverted, now that inaccuracy remains, and here we are. Something small can be big.
How is one's contributions supposed to be a clue in investigating an edit to a userpage? {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as the editor who reverted that change (though actually I've had your page on my watchlist for a while, ever since I wrote you a note about your April Fool's Day activities): when an editor does something problematic, it's pretty standard procedure to look at that user's recent contributions to see if they're being disruptive. And please don't deflect by saying it's "inaccurate": it's not your userpage, and unless you're reverting vandalism or you know the editor sufficiently well that you are sure that they won't have a problem with your edits, you should never touch someone else's userpage. Period.

Now, speaking as a fellow editor who jumped into the deep end of the wiki a little too early: "good faith" doesn't mean "correct" and doesn't excuse you from getting a boot for messing up. If someone significantly more experienced than you is telling you that you did something wrong, don't start a policy argument, don't assume that everyone's out to get you, just stop. If you don't understand what the problem is, ask, but think about your phrasing - don't say "you're wrong because of policy X," say "I thought policy X said that I was supposed to do Y, could you explain why Y was wrong?" creffett (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh did I say that "good faith" = "correct"? I'm pretty sure what I was trying to say was "good faith" = "not intended to cause problems". Hold on, let me fix that.  Done
Also, are you calling my edit to Bbb's userpage "problematic"? In addition, I'm not sure where the policy argument took place, so I'm not sure why you are stating this. I even asked instead of arguing. Of course if I did something wrong (probably for first time doing something) that is unclear to me, I would ask, and I clearly did. What more is there? {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 00:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC closed

So the RfC in concern has been closed. So if someone drives by and would be willing to constructively explain to be the difference between this and that, it would be great. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 04:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I find the differences to be minimal. There is one substantive one - they did not insert a joke at the end of the close - but that isn't really enough to say they're different. So my issues continue and know that at least I am contemplating what my next step is in regards to this close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Final warning

Hi, I’m letting you know that while you may have good intentions, your behavior in project space and the behind the scenes area of Wikipedia are disruptive, because you don’t know enough about how our project works to act in a way that follows our generally accepted norms. Please focus on content and actions that help improve the public facing side of this project. Continued disruption in project space and similar areas may result in sanctions. This could include an indefinite block if it’s needed to prevent disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

By recent, I assume you are rererring to here and there. A grammatical and interpretation dispute. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 01:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

And the other discussions on this talk page and the events that led to them. I count closing RfCs as behind the scenes work, same with messing with deletion templates and reverse engineering a script that requires permission to use. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Can I Log In. I see that you got a warning from one of our fellow admins TonyBallioni. As he said, I think your best bet would be to focus on our mission in the areas that people are more likely to see. I have been given breaks from editing before for similar behavior. Admins only block if there is a risk of disruption, so one way you can stop disrupting is to read our policies and guidelines for rules and best practices in the areas where you may be causing disruption. You can do the same for articles as well, though you can make any edit using your own common sense (maybe with a little help from the manual of style). I trust that you can make good edits in line with our mission. Aasim 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Stay out of Wikipedia space

For what earthly reason are you clerking WP:PERM? You are not an admin nor an experienced user.

And stop telling people what to do.

You were just warned about your behavior in the back end of Wikipedia and you're still out doing this? Natureium (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm cutting down my Wikipedia space edits. My current focus is WP:GOCE/DRIVE (for the most part). I've understood the above messages, and I'm not going to continue this behavior anymore. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, I hope you continue improving articles through GOCE. I hope you also realize the difference between making a general comment at Eek's RfA about using correct pronouns (something I truly and deeply believe in even though I make mistakes sometimes including with Eek) and calling out a specific editor. Especially because your comment to that editor was pretty aggressive. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick note re: NYL

Hi Can I Log In! Thanks again for your feedback at Talk:New York Life Insurance Company and adding the request edit template to the follow-up I'd posted. Do you think you might be able to look again? It seems like the edit request queue is a little more backlogged than usual, and since you're familiar with the ask I wanted to see if it might be at all possible for you to take a look at my reply. Thank you in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Can I Log In! I was wondering why you chose that username, no offense, it is a little odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneillge2029 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Congraulations!

	Contrib Contest: 1st place!
	You have the most contributions of any user I have seen, and I have seen thousands upon thousands! Amazing, huh? Oneillge2029 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oneillge2029: Hi. On wikipedia there are 11 editors who have more than 1 million each. You can see more info at WP:NOE. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Oneillge2029 you might want to check out list of Wikipedians by number of edits. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. I'll quarentine this as a non-so deserving barnstar. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ecem Güzel

Hello:

I had a look at the article Ecem Güzel which you copy edited. Apart from a few words that I tweeked, and the addition of a wiki link in the opening paragraph, your copy edit was fine. Thanks so much for your work on the drive and welcome to the Guild! If you ever have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was checking for a copyvio in a COI edit request above, and it turns out your feedback contains a copyvio! {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 21:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit of Lori Loughlin

Providing some feedback on your copy edit of Lori Loughlin:

• Starting in the infobox and throughout the article you changed en dashes to the rarely used figure dash (‒). I'm not sure what that was about. An en-dash is the appropriate character for indicating a range (in the majority of uses) and later as a spaced en-dash to indicate a break in thought. See MOS:DASH for more information. The GOCE expects completed copy edits to be correct for punctuation, so it is important to understand Wikipedia's style rules for dashes and hyphens. (These should all be changed back to en dashes and hyphens for the hyphenated surnames.)
• You changed She has one younger brother → Loughlin has one younger brother. While MOS:SURNAME recommends using surnames for tone, we should be careful when it might be confusing. That paragraph is talking about her family, where everyone shares the surname Loughlin. I personally think that she was a shade less confusing in the flow of the passage, but it's a fairly minor point. In cases like this it might be worth considering a total rephrase.
• Loughlin attended Oaks School #3 We don't like using the numero characer (#) which is not universally understood to mean "number" and which has the possibility of being misinterpreted as markup code (MOS:NUMERO). Again, this is a matter of punctuation and should be addressed. Since it has a generic use and is not part of a title, change it to No.
• You linked ABC. Please consider carefully what to link based on what is likely to be useful to the reader. Here, I would consider this to be WP:OVERLINKING because a couple words later the article links The Edge of Night which is more likely to be of interest to the reader. That article links to ABC in its lead, so the reader can get to the ABC article easily enough if they do happen to be interested in that. It is usually more useful to link to specific targets, which tend to have the more general targets linked in their leads (it's easier to navigate from a specific topic to a general topic than vice-versa)
• From 1983 to 1988, Loughlin appeared in a number of feature films and television guest spots. You changed number → many. Both terms are vague. Her filmography, though it may not be complete, lists six movie and nine television appearances. So I'd probably use "more than a dozen".
• From 1988 to 1995, Loughlin was cast in the ABC sitcom Full House as Rebecca Donaldson, Danny Tanner's (Bob Saget) co-host, and later, Jesse Katsopolis' (John Stamos) wife. Way too much overlinking there, and I don't know why all that context is necessary. I'd trim everything after the second comma.
  • Oh, it should be Jesse Katsopolis's (MOS:POSS). I missed that the first time, it's easy to miss punctuation around references and wikilinks, so try to pay attention in those places.
• You changed Initially set for a six-episode arc → She was initially set for a six-episode arc which changes the subject from her appearance to the actor herself. I feel that a rephrase would be in order, changing the verb to something clearer.
• From 2004 to 2005, Loughlin co-created, produced, and starred in you added the serial comma before and. If you decide that this suits the style of the article, please make sure to apply it consistently throughout the article (there is a place in the lead missing a serial comma).
• I noticed that at the end of the last paragraph, you moved a reference into a citation template but did not preserve all of the parameter data.
• In the lead, you changed charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud → charged with conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud. I agree that the lead should be a summary and specifying all the charges there isn't necessary. However, the individual charges don't seem to be given in the bribery scandal section, and by removing them from the lead you're removing them from the article altogether. This is really the fault of the editors who were previously working on the article, who added to the lead instead of adding to the body. Nonetheless, copy editors should be cautious about this when removing content. I feel that the charges could be added near the beginning of the second paragraph of the bribery scandal section (with citation, the NBC one will do), and all the charges be summarized in the lead (more charges were added in October 2019) perhaps "charged with fraud- and bribery-related offences" or similar.
• put their Aspen, Colorado home on sale Needs a comma after Colorado (MOS:GEOCOMMA). This is easy to miss because of the wikilink brackets, so try to watch in those places.

Other notes:

• The lead could probably use a rewrite. The first paragraph is too "listy" and not a proper summary/introduction for the article. Also, if you set the list aside, it gives too much prominence to the recent charges which makes it unbalanced.
• The bribery scandal section gets a bit repetitive, and could probably use a rewrite. However, it's a breaking-news thing which is going to keep getting updated, and may not be worth spending a lot of time on it until it stabilizes.

I know some of this is pretty picky, but copy editing is about paying attention to these little details. I hope you take this constructively. I think you overall made improvements to the article and are on the right track, but I'd appreciate it if you went back and fixed the punctuation and a couple other things. Please ping me if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I will resume the copy edit. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reidgreg, to address the feedback about the dash, I use U+2012 for en-dash instead of using {{endash}} or –. They were initially em-dashes as I saw it with ctrl-F and U+2013, so I massed change them with the source editor's advanced search and replace tool. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 19:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that you have the wrong code? List of XML and HTML character entity references says that the en dash is U+2013 and the em dash is U+2014. You can also use the markup – and — which are less cryptic. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Got the Unicode wrong by 1 unit. Always use the HTML wikitext. ‒ (U+2012) is not – (U+2013), even though they look the same. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My Talk:J. B. Hunt request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am here to explain myself and reply to your comments. About the first section, In the book Trucking in the Age of Information Chelsea White covers J.B. Hunt technology use for their load optimization. I cannot share with you the book but I can send you the link to a paragraph in the 2nd chapter of the book that I think will suffice. About the second section, I understand and I was not aware I was violating copyrights but the information is correct. Allow me to rephrase:

==== Safety ====

J.B. Hunt has implemented hair testing for all pre-employment tests since May 2006, in addition to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) mandated urine testing. Hair testing can detect prior drug usage for up to 90 days. Drivers are also trained and certified in the safety training program Smith System, the company understand that the drivers' education is paramount to reduce accidents and save lives.

Thanks, let me know your opinion.

References

SamanthaSwiss (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am just asking about your username. It is a bit odd. Could you explain why you chose that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneillge2029 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look at this soon (within 24 hours). {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I hope you are doing very well. I am here again to ask for your opinion on my new request Talk:J._B._Hunt#New_corporate_affairs_section, RandomCanadian answered but I don't think his statement was solid as he only says that the request probably doesnt go. Thanks SamanthaSwiss (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Socialism in Argentina has been accepted

Socialism in Argentina, 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.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DocumentError (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

on my JABBERWOKY edits

I tried to find a place to message you dumb editors but it is impossible to find. So instead I just put the message in the page knowing you editors would get it.

Honestly, wikipedia has become a top heavy dictatorship of "don't touch our stuff." I have had first hand knowledge content I offered sometime back removed despite knowing more about the subject than any person alive (Towers in Canada).

When I visited the Jabberwoky page and saw the cacophony of ridiculous and pathetic over editing, clearly by the editors, with ZERO evidence of the poem, I knew Wikipedia was doomed instantly.

I used to love visiting Wikipedia, but the editors, as can be very clearly seen on the Jabberwoky page, have become the uber-bureaucratic garbage that Wikipedia was set up to address as being destructive to Encyclopedic knowledge. I have no idea what happened to Wikipedia, but it is getting worse everyday and is now becoming the new Yahoo search Engine.

So sad. P.S. Where the fuck is the Jabberwoky Poem and a fucking link where I just send you schmucks a message over such things???

Thank you for your time, and I hope you are all safe and healthy during this terrible pandemic. The above is nothing personal, seriously, I just want to get your attention over this terrible example of a Wiki page that's inexplicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.29.222 (talk) 14:44, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Signature

I had to look at the source code to verify your username in your recent post at COIN. There's no need for the reply-to template or the template markup. Are you aware of the signature guidelines/policies, namely "Do not use images, templates or external links in your signature". Just a thought.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am definitely aware. A link to {{replyto}} is not an image, template, or external link; rather it's an internal link. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see, it's like a game.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn cross-wiki

It's very important that you do not use RedWarn cross-wiki just yet - I have localisations plans soon, but all of RedWarns API calls are hard-coded to use en.wiki.x.io - running on a different Wiki means every action you take there will just happen on English Wikipedia instead causing potential disruption. I'll try and get localisation working as soon as it's feasible. Ed6767 talk! 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

My recent edits on the impeachment of Donald Trump

Hello. I wanted to post a coment here to explain myself in relation to the matter in question. For an extended period, one editor (whose edits I reverted most recently) repeatedly introduced the wording about a bipartisan impeachment, and was repeatedly reverted by other users when they continued to add that content. I thought I had remembered a consensus decision defining bipartisan support for any measure as coming into play when multiple people from the opposing party crossed the aisle, which did not apply to the impeachment matter, since only one senator (Mitt Romney from Utah) crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats on one of the two charges. I accordingly reverted those edits again, as had been done in the past, which I believed was the correct thing to do. When my latest revert was in turn reverted, the reasoning given was that the consensus that I had remembered as being established might have never actually occurred. If that is indeed correct, I was in error, and I was correctly called on it. I never meant to violate any rules, if that is indeed what happened here. I have edited here on Wikipedia in various capacities for around 14 years, and my record speaks for itself, including my cooperation with other editors, and agreeing to and upholding consensus when that is established. My intention was not to break the rules here, but merely to preserve the content that I believed was protected by consensus. I am more than willing to recognize that I may have been mistaken on this matter, and if I acted inappropriately or improperly, that's on me. But I hope it is understood that I have always done my best to assume good faith and to support Wikipedia policies and consensus decisions, even if at times I don't agree with those 100%. With all that noted, please feel free to let me know, through replying here on your page, or through a comment on my talk page, if you need more information from me on that. Thanks, and again, my apologies if I acted imprudently or against policy in this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Seriousness vs. fun

Hi Can I Log In,

If I understand correctly, you enjoy editing and modifying preferences. I'm happy to see that you enjoy this, but – when having a look at a report at WP:UAA about User talk:Qwertyuioppoiuytrewqmnbhagdidnegxkfnrhdicnrnebjcjdmd – I have noticed two things:

• The edit summary generated by Twinkle ends in "TW" by default, and I believe that two considerations led to this decision: Keeping it short, as it's not that relevant and more an automatic little tag. And keeping it serious, not "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" when reverting changes and warning users, to avoid confusion or, in the worst case, making people feel mocked.
• Signatures are primarily meant to display who has written a message, and when. Signatures should probably not contain links to interface pages (such as the login page, as interestingly someone has already complained above) or template pages. If the purpose of linking {{reply to}} in your signature is educating those who read it about the template usage, I'd like to propose a different approach: There are, by default, two links in your signature. One to your user page, and one to your talk page. If you keep both pages readable, concise and with an easy link to Special:NewSection/User talk:Can I Log In, there is no need for detailed instructions. I'm not sure how a disabled wikibreak switch is important to any reader, I'd say {{talkheader}} is unnecessarily complicated and detailed, especially with its optional "disclaimer" enabled, and any distinction between registered users and IP editors can be done automatically (see the source code of my talk page). I see a wall of irrelevant text above the only sentence needed to make it easy to reply: "Please click here to leave me a new message." So simple. Add a similarly clearly visible link to your user page, and you suddenly have no need for complicated instructions and a weird signature anymore.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the concern about by huge talk page lead, considering that I infrequently get new messages, it'll probably be shortened, though I also infrequently edit my user page(s). {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume that you strongly disagree about the other concerns, as Special:Diff/961719612 happened afterwards? I have received a "thank you" notification from yet another administrator for sending the original message. If you merely ignore it, I will take it to WP:ANI. There are enough complaints to make it reasonable to ask you to start listening. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If that is apparently a concern, you can keep track of me changing my TW preferences as you would've seen this. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, thank you very much. It may be obvious, but I have a feeling I should mention that this change has happened five minutes after my message, after twelve hours of inactivity. Thus I'm not entirely sure how "I would have seen" this change before requesting it.

May I kindly ask you to reconsider the confusing signature link as well? You deal a lot with newcomers, and I find it hard to understand why you would complicate their first steps with unnecessary confusion. The signature was what brought me here in the first place; the Twinkle summary is something I noticed after having a look at the recent contributions. That said, I may not be the ideal person to complain about signatures, as my opinion about fancy signatures is rather extreme (WP:SIGRANT). I recommend that, if anyone (!) else, be it a newbie or an administrator, complains about your signature in the future, you finally change it without further discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Refs

Please avoid bare URLs when you add references, as you did here. Also, I am not super-thrilled with the idea of adding a link to Special:UserLogin in your signature, as it could be misconstrued as an attempt to gain access to someone's account. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I do avoid bare URLs. This time I just forgot to switch to visual editor. Citation expander took forever, refill wasn't working at the time. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, this was more of a note than any chastisement. Any thoughts about your sig? Primefac (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Misconstrued. Yup, happens to me a lot. A lot. I may change it if it's apparently a disruptive link. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 21:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Talked to a couple of other admins, just to get opinions. The general consensus is that it is somewhat of a problem. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, your sig seems to violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Miniapolis 17:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition

Hi! As far as I know, MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition can be edited only by interface administrators—its title doesn’t end with .css or .js, but its content controls what CSS/JS is executed for whom, so it’s a risky page as well. For example, I’m an admin on huwikisource, yet I can’t edit s:hu:MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, I get the same error message as on actual CSS/JS pages. So I suggest reverting the protected edit request template to {{edit interface-protected}}. Regards, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Tacsipacsi WP:REDLOCK system-wide .js and .css pages are restricted to interface admins (and interface editors). The rest in the MediaWiki namespace are restricted to regular sysops (and interface editors. You can try pressing the submit edit request button and it will preload the FPER template instead of the IPER template. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are not authoritative sources of information. The policy is definitive source of what the community accepted, but nothing guarantees that it accurately describes the technical environment. MediaWiki:Protectedinterface—which is displayed on the edit page for users who are not allowed to modify it—uses a heuristics to determine what template should be used, so it may be wrong. The only authoritative source is the experience of an English Wikipedia administrator, while the next closest sources are experience on other wikis and analyzing the source code itself (but nuances can lead to different results, so it’s not easy to get it right). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

decline of request for article on Parvaneh Pourshariati

Dear Can-I-Log-In

I am new to WikiPedia editing, and I just want to understand why my proposed article in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession/Historians on "Parvaneh Pourshariati" was marked as "not notable"by you at 04:50, 13 June 2020. I assumed since the article exists in Persian Wikipedia (Farsi), it would have passed the notability test. What other documentation should I provide to make the item "notable"? The person in question is considered as one of the leading figures in the US in the study of Early Islam and late antique Iran.

Yours --Shamfuturu (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Shamfuturu Hi there. So this was you, which I then reverted later here.

The general criteria for notability is as quoted from WP:GNG.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

You cited 2 Wikipedia articles, the subject herself and being the former president of ASPS. Wikipedia articles and other user-generated content are not reliable sources since anyone can change them. You cited a website to CUNY ([1], which is not independent of the subject. Last of all, you cited an Amazon item, which does not show significant coverage, not just passing a mention.

So there you go, it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Even then, it would have to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR.

And regarding the Wikipedia article of the subject on fawiki, I found their WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO; their guidelines are similar to enwiki. There are 3 references you could use from that article however, but if a deletionist finds it, it'll probably be discussed for deletion.

In general you need a minimum of 2 (3 is recommended) reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank for the clarification. I will look for substantiating sources from outside.

Yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamfuturu (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Shamfuturu No problem. If you need any further help, you can place {{help me}} on your talk page with your question, ask at the help desk, or the teahouse (the help desk for newcomers).

And about the article you want to request, requesting an article is extremely slow. Perhaps you could translate the article from fawiki. You can start a draft article with the Wikipedia:Article_wizard.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 04:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

article Leo van de Pas

Following extensive improvement work, please can you reconsider your notability and add cit tags on the above article, or engage in the Talk Page Icairns 2 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So here is what I think of it now.

• Article assessment—I have speedy reassessed it to Start-Class since that is definitely not a stub.
• Notability—I think that the article meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is borderline, and has the possibility of being draftified. The article having been marked as reviewed by a new page patroller, it can stay. Like I said, notability is borderline which brings me to my next point.
• Reliable sources—The sources you normally want to go after are independent, secondary sources. I see a lot of sources from https://genealogics.org; it is associated with oh guess what? The subject of the article Leo van de Pas. Not an independent source. I also see some self-publsihed sources. Unless it came form the subject itself, You normally don't want to use self-published sources, especially on a biography of living persons. The sources you have used are not deprecated; you can still use them; it is just preferred that you use other sources when possible.

So that is my feedback on the article; it can stay as it is, and you can definitely expand it. Maybe on day you can get it to featured article.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your consideration. Icairns 2 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of a word

Just as a bit of a word of advice, sometimes you come on quite strong and interact with others in a way that I would describe as rude, whether intentional or not. As a few examples:

• all caps calling people crappy isn't ideal
• hatting a section you yourself are commenting in with the edit summary "welcome to Hell" and a reply lecturing people on grammar is basically the epitomey of rudeness. In most English-speaking countries, it is considered very rude to correct the grammar of adults, even if it is wrong, because you correct the grammar of children.
• All caps is considered yelling on the internet. Additionally, lecturing people who have been here significantly longer than you on how Wikipedia works is generally considered bad form. Deb was the second RfA on the RfA page. While you are certainly free to disagree with people, both in real life and on Wikipedia people lecturing people who reasonably know what you're telling them about tends to really annoy people.
• Lecturing an admin on BITE when they are asking a valid question on how to deal with things.
• This comment to Ritchie333 telling him not to assume people were male. This is a pretty normal thing based on the historical usage of he as the neutral pronoun in English, and in some English-speaking regions it continues to be the norm. There's no reason for the assumption of bad faith and lecturing here.
• The general dismissive attitude in this thread and combativeness towards people expressing legitimate concerns.

Anyway, I guess that this is a warning to tone down your approach towards people. I guess its a WP:CIVIL issue, but really it's m:Don't be a jerk. This type of minor things that really annoy people build up over time, and can lead to sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For the awesome CVUA template: job well done! Cheers -- puddleglum2.0 05:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Declined I am not 21, the legal drinking age in the U.S. My date of birth is 2018-03-18. [Warned]. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

In lieu of the beer. -- puddleglum2.0 19:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Template changes

Hi Can I Log In,

sorry, it's me again, but I promise this is a coincidence, caused by my surprised look at Special:Diff/964082465, a broken Twinkle ANI notification.

I'm concerned about two things:

• The lack of actual testing during, or at least after, the template changes [2]
• Reverting to an own revision after a revert, in the template namespace (Special:Diff/964081532).

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

PS, actually, the testing was probably fine; the lack of a signature just caused the problem to go unnoticed. No worries about that, I think, then. I'm out. Especially as this is about a signature. Heh. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix and test :) No worries from my side anymore. All good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh about the revert, I practice 1RR. If you think your intentions were misunderstood, revert it back. Now to remember no new lines for <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>. Otherwise, it causes whitespace. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the edit request template: Ah, well, my personal interpretation of 1RR is WP:BRD. My personal interpretation is "You're always welcome to revert after a bold edit, and then discussion should happen". But after a bold edit was reverted, I personally wouldn't revert back to my revision. If 1RR is purely about reverts, perhaps one can say that boldly overwriting an entire template is a revert itself, somehow. A similar interpretation can be found at WP:WHEEL, but that only applies to administrative actions. Hmm. Well. It was re-reverted by bradv now anyway. I just noticed it when checking if there had been testing.

Regarding my revert, I have no opinion about this other than "as long as it works, everything is fine". So no worries, really. All the best. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 GOCE blitz bling

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the blitz! Please consider voting in the GOCE coordinator elections which are open through 30 June. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

Six weeks ago you had been issued a final warning which seemed to be a turning point for you. Comments like this is backsliding from that. Stay on the positive path. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It was just a note? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Your endorsing an action was not needed. Your comment that a nomination counts as a delete !vote is correct but is also of questionable helpfulness for someone who should not be closing XfDs, for reasons already enumerated by L235. It is, through good intentions, a form of disruption. These kind of good intended disruptive comments and actions are what landed you a final warning which is why I give you this reminder. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Huey

Hi there!

I just responded to this:

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Huey_(rapper)#Huey%E2%80%94information_not_contained_at_sources

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear Can I Log In,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Triveni Sangh

Hi i need ur help.I created a draft article recently.How to publish it in mainspace? Heba Aisha (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So I did some cleanup on the draft; here is some feedback.

• Duplicate references—please see WP:IBID on this or preferably WP:NAMEDREFS.
• Spacing and reference footnotes—I hate it when I see this, but it's very easy to clean up. You want to have no space before a reference footnote, and a space after.
• Disambiguation pages—You wikilinked to Shahabad, a disambiguation page. You almost never want to do that in an article's main content. Reading the context, I have changed the link to Shahabad District.

You say that your draft is ready, so place {{subst:submit}} at the top of our draft and an AfC reviewer will accept or decline it. I predict the chances for it being published ot mainspace is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely).

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Heba Aisha (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

CSDs

Generally we do not delete talk pages. Tiderolls 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls or just any type of trolls. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

G12

You tagged Draft:Legal attorney for G12 deletion without specifying what it copied. I found the source at legalmatch.com article what-is-an-attorney-at-law.html, but that was something you should have done before tagging with for G12.

Please do not courtesy blank copyvio. It prevents the tools built into {{db-copyvio}} from assessing the copyvio, and the copyvio still remains in the article's history to be cleaned up.

Is this still within the bounds of your conditional unblock​? Cabayi (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi I didn't give a link because of the spam blacklist.

As for the conditional unblock,

Cleaning up BARE URLs and handling COPYVIO is a standard part of copy editing so both make sense. But exercise caution. For instance, I would look askance on something like you joining/doing CopyPatrol. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there are other options to alert editors to the material's source, as I did above. Twinkle is a tool to help you make CSD nominations - you're not a prisoner to its way of doing things. Your Twinkle edit on the page didn't have to be your last.

Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle.

Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Good advice Cabayi. Just as a reminder CILI, but the spirit of the conditional unblock is be starting with copyediting and going from there. As this was a newly created draft I'm not sure how it would have appeared in a copyedit queue. However, I agree with you that G12 is not, on its own, a problem with the unblock conditions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline of c/e request for Nagpur

Hi Can I Log In; regarding your decline template on this c/e request; I know it seems obvious to decline because the requester is sock-blocked but the usual GOCE procedure is to place the request {{On hold}} and discuss the issue at REQ talk (section link) before a decline. I've opened a discussion there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the requester CILI, I've restored you decline template after a brief talk discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Squash in India

On 25 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Squash in India, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British Raj restricted access to squash courts in India—then located on military bases—to the upper class of society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Squash in India. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Squash in India), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Responding to pings

Responding to pings and responding to talk page messages are not quite the same thing. So, in my view User_talk:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper#Old_known_inssues does not fall with-in the safe harbor of your conditional unban. Resuming discussions, especially one where you displayed the attitude with Izno that was part of what led me to blocking you in the first place, is not a loophole or with-in the spirit of the restriction. The restriction reads Exceptions to this will be narrowly construed and need to directly involve content work. for a reason. So if someone came here to moot some Wikipedia policy with you that doesn't qualify under "reply to talk page messages" (though you could leave a polite response explaining why you aren't engaging in the conversation rather than just ignoring them). I think you've been honoring both the letter and the spirit of the restriction so far so I'm not blocking but please keep the literal wording and my general comment about honoring the spirit of the restriction in mind when edge cases arise or ask before doing it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I've also been pinged by 2 paid editors to review their COI edit request here and there. Can I Log In (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, thanks for asking. I'm trying to figure out why these feel different for me than doing PCR and what I think it boils down to PCR is about vandalism recognition which was an area of concern while COI/UPE is as much about writing (though also verification). So bottom line is go ahead and give those requests a go. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Almost every request at WP:PERM/PCR is about anti-vandalism, the main purpose of pending changes; I see it as a "fact-check this edit". You appear to be permit me to review the 2 COI edit requests, which I will review sometime tomorrow. Almost ALL of my talk namespace edits are reviewing protected and COI edit request. Except for the 2 above or if you permit me to do so, I will continue to hold off reviewing protected edit request and the insanely backlogged COI edit request queue. Can I Log In (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, maybe I wasn't clear - wouldn't surprise me because my thinking was a bit muddled on this. At first blush PCR and COI edit requests do seem to be equivalent processes. But I had very different reactions to each. And my reason ultimately came down to edit requests are content creation of a sort and are, frequently, quite similar to copyediting (just with a little bit of verification/RS work thrown in for good measure). PCR just isn't content creation in quite that way. Hope that explains more clearly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand the part about pending changes that it is normally a "is this edit disruptive?" I just have another viewpoint on it. On edit request, I'll quote what you said above: ... edit requests are is part content creation, part administrative action. ... So far now leave them alone. Now you are implying "you can review edit request"? Can I Log In (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Can I Log In/Archive 1,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Jocky Wilson Cup

Hello:

I reviewed your copy edit of the article Jocky Wilson Cup. I made a few minor wording changes and fixed a couple of date formats so they were consistent throughout the article, otherwise the copy edit was fine. Thanks for helping out at the Guild. You should let the requestor know you have completed the copy edit and, if you wish, add

on the talk page of articles you have copy edited. You can use

on the talk page of the requester. If you use the templates your name will appear instead of mine.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, for GAN copyedit request I forget to slam templates. He should be aware that the copy edit is complete. This is another thing to add to my "list of extra copy edits I could have made". Cool! Can I Log In (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 GOCE blitz bling

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous revert?

I'm not sure what happened here. Maybe the RedWarn tool made some sort of error? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey I don't recall pressing the vandalism rollback button. I was doing stuff with ISBNs, and your contribs was the first thing that popped into my mind, but your ISBN work was totally irrelevant. Seems like I pressed it on accident. Can I Log In (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Please see

Template:Please see has been nominated for merging with Template:Discussion notice. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GOCE blitz award

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE October 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Can I Log In/Archive 1,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Wikipedia mini globe handheld

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER

Don't ask me how I found this page but umm, I found it. Looks like a G1/G3 to me. CSD it please—if it's allowed. Thanks... Can I Log In (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone may mark a page for speedy deletion, not just admins. That said, this redirect appears to be a notable line from this film, so it makes sense that someone might search for it. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot, CILI currently has some editing restrictions that would stop them from making the request themselves. CILI: it's been a while without incident which would indicate that some sort of loosening of the restrictions may be appropriate if you would like to propose something. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As a neutral observer who does not remember the history of this editing restriction but had this page on my watchlist for some reason, I recommend against using this recommendation of a speedy deletion as a basis for loosening restrictions. That redirect is clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion, as the phrase is the most memorable phrase from the story linked in the target article, and the phrase appears verbatim in the target. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2020

Press show for details

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for lacking the competence to edit Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Since March, which is when you truly became active, and in only looking through your talk page archives, I see a pattern of disruptive editing across a wide range of Wikipedia. Raced to include information without a source Left experienced users warning messages (which you are still seemingly doing today Restored vandalism Had issues five different issues with their signature: Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Engaged in disruptive April Fools jokes: 1, 2, 3 Unnecessarily changed templates at RfD Had an RfC close over turned Clerked a PERM page Used a script cross wiki which was not capable of being used cross wiki and which use could disrupt English Wikipedia Inappropriately joked at UAA Attempted to edit a gadget Broke a Twinkle template Incorrectly attempted a G6 because "I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls" Then there are more serious problems you've had including reverse engineering a script to do mass edits. You have also spoken to other editors in a way that merited a formal notice by TonyBallioni who had previously left you a warning after you disruptively edited policy/guideline pages. No single incident is on their own troubling. But there are patterns of problems (including signatures, technical editing you do not do correctly, and attempting to dive into project space tasks which you lack the background and/or skill to do successfully), a wide range of these problems, and a discussion style that is confrontational and not in the collaborative spirit of this project. On the plus side, after a rocky start, you do seem to do a good job with copy editing. However, that positive is not enough to outweigh all the negatives or enough to show that you have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49 I would like to address the concerns in no particular order, particularly the early ones. Raced to include information without a source—I haven't done that any more, and I've been strict on the sourcing. Templating regulars—That one I've learned to not needlessly drop by. That note about the protection was intendle to be a note. Restored vandalism—I didn't know about TW enough to understand the restore button, even though it meant restore. I haven't accidentaly done that since that. Signature—not as much of a severe problem as it was before. From this point on is when things really get hot. reverse engineering a script to do mass edits—I should've never done that. RfD template—I believe you were referring to this one. I though the "hard" redirect was actually supposed to be there. That one I have learned from. Had an RfC close over turned—while the consensus was correct, weeks/months later, I see how it was a bad close. Clerked a PERM page—my bad, should've never gone it. Inappropriately joked at UAA—I never joked at UAA. What that thread was about was my TW edit summar "Twinkle Twinkle Little Start". Used a script cross wiki which was not capable of being used cross wiki and which use could disrupt English Wikipedia—never happened since I don't have (auto)confirmed status on wikis that would load it. Attempted to edit a gadget—the thread was about if it was editable by only administrators or interface admins. Broke a Twinkle template—fixed Incorrectly attempted a G6 because "I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls"—I should've never done that in the first place OK so I made my statement. I just wanted to address the issues, and now here we are. What is next to move forward? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Ultimately you need to address the reason for the block. As I wrote the problem was not any individual incident, it was the total picture presented by all these different things when looked at together. So replying about each diff presented isn't actually responding to the concern. In terms of the block being lifted you have a couple options. You can discuss with me what will be different if you were to be unblocked. If I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently I will lift the block. Or you can use the unblock template to get a different administrator to look at things. Choosing one of these options does not prevent you from doing the other one in the future. But the first step is to do as the blocking template instructs and read the guide to appealing blocks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49 I'll summarize the block in 2 words. recklessly bold. While being bold is desired to article related content and its related talk page, not a good idea in the "behind the scenes". This means if I were to be unblocked, I would have to be extremely STRICT on what edits I make in project space unrelated to article content (WikiProjects, other article clean-up related task). I would define strict as anything in project space that are stuff I'm currently working on pre-block incidents or discussions I've been involved in or explicitly invited to make a comment anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion, legit questions and if necessary for some super strange and unusual IAR rationale, well IAR. In short, don't be bold in project space. I can just sit back and see what's going on behind the scenes, but not intervene without the good strict reason. Now in my opinion, this doesn't really cover the current user-interaction concerns. The main problem with this piece of the block is that some of my comments are be construed differently than I intended; this is definitely a major concern. This is probably another don't be bold thing and do what I said above. An unblock with or without a mandated restriction is discretionary, but I will have to voluntarily abide by the above if I am going to be unblocked. I won't ask for another opinion on this right now; my words above I stand by. Can I Log In (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Can I Log In, this is on the right track of how I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently. I am glad we're off to a productive start. Before I respond more substantively, I want to understand what you're proposing. What do you see as stuff I'm currently working on pre-block and can you give me a diff that would be an example of you offering anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion and a diff of an example of what you see as legit questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC) For one, a content dispute over with Primfac on whether {{Edit partially-blocked}} should function like other protected edit request template such as {{edit semi-protected}} or just merge it with {{request edit}}, the COI edit request template. I'm not explaining that dispute in further detail, nor will I explain its background, but once it would be over, slowly "advertise", but not disruptively, the template (add links to related pages and templates) (this part of the unblocking may be blocked). Other than that, there isn't really much about stuff I'm currently working on pre-block, so that would go away quickly within estimate a month. Productive comments—I've been watching this ArbCom clarification request regarding the ARBPIA General Sanctions. One of the arbitrators made a comment which I believe was not the intention, so I made my statement with what I found from the ARBPIA3 case. Non-productive comemnts—ANI or ArbCom, both are heated when there is an indepth discussion. So I found Why is this ok?, and uh, for one, that should be at village pump since there is no long-term or urgent user-conduct issues, and two, the productivity of that I find to be borderline. WIth my intention of don't be bold, if you're not certain, just don't. Another example—ANI again. This is a genuine and legit question from what appears to be a new editor. I'll stop providing example here. If you need more... OK I will. Those are some examples I found. Can I Log In (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC) No, we are not going to talk about this during an unblock discussion. Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC) You are currently the only one who thinks that {{PBER}} should be changed, and I wish you'd drop that stick; partial block edit requests are essentially edit requests, because the page is (generally speaking) unprotected, so it falls in the same category. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) And as it functions, has needless parameters that I find unneccessary since they are designed for COI. {{request edit}} is a COI edit request; {{PBER}} is similar to protected edit request. Can I Log In (talk) 17:02, July 2, 2020 (UTC) Can I Log In, do you have an example of a legit question that you have asked? I think that presents clearer sense of what is being talkeda about than another editor's question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Who is the publisher?, one time I had a question about The London Gazette. And a genuine but not very useful, but legit. A question regarding my first RfPP request which was declined. A technical problem with preferences. And since April, really no questions asked. If I do have to ask a question, well think about how I asked these. Can I Log In (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Can I Log In, thanks. That's helpful. After reading the diffs you provided, and considering the past issues, I agree with the general thrust of what you're proposing but think we need to look at a more radical version of it. You stop all activities that are not related to content creation. Exceptions to this will be narrowly construed and need to directly involve your content work. You may, following the lifting of the block, make one change to your user signature and you may make subsequent corrective changes if suggested by other users. Otherwise leave your signature alone for the length of these restrictions. To give some parameters as to what content creation means, copy editing is a form of content creation so that can continue (I'll discuss the GOCE more in a moment). Recent change patrolling and other counter vandalism patrolling are important pieces of work but are not content creation so that stops. Responding to people on your user talk is obviously fine. Asking legitimate questions, like what you linked above, is fine and even encouraged. Templating, warning, or correcting editors is not necessary to content creation so I would expect your use of other's talk pages to be limited things like pointing them towards talk page discussions or asking legitimate questions. Speaking of which, using article talk pages is a core part of the content creation process and so using them is fine. You can use noticeboards as needed to report on users you came into contact with while doing content creation or to respond if you are brought to one. If for some reason you need help not permitted by this restriction (i.e. an article you've done content work on has been vandalized and nothing has happened after a reasonable amount of time and after you've posted on the article talk page) you may use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates. The conversation you linked at {{PBER}} is an excellent example of a principle I don't think you've yet absorbed but are going to need to to continue here: there are other editors who understand Wikipedia and it systems better than you. You need to be asking more questions and making fewer changes and fewer statements about how things are or should be. Primefac is among our most respected editors; that respect led him to be chosen first as a sysop and then a bureaucrat. For him to stop a conversation because you're not listening to what he's writing says something and it's not about Primefac. Instead of getting into a disagreement that could have and should have been an opportunity to learn. That conversation plays out differently if you'd started with a question and then really thought and considered the answer and then maybe asked another question. If you do this, you are eventually going to learn enough to be able to starting really answering questions and having opinions and ideas that are not disruptive but which improve the encyclopedia. If you need a second example of what needs to stop, it would be telling me how unblock edit restrictions work. I have been trusted with the sysop toolset for a reason and part of the basis of that trust is because I know when I need to ask questions about something. Without your GOCE work this would be a different story. That work has been the best, and perhaps only, evidence that you can be a positive productive Wikipedian. Without it I do not invest the significant time I have just done typing this all out in hopes of guiding you in a better direction; instead I tell you to file an appeal, knowing it probably gets declined, and you have to wait six months to ask for the standard offer. As it seems like you're doing good work there, and because you are seen as a positive, if you would like to participate in that project during this time of editing restriction that's fine. The idea will be to give you a space where you can demonstrate the new better you. A word of warning though: because things would be looking very different without the GOCE, were that project, or leaders of that project, to feel differently than they do today about your participation we'd have to re-examine whether or not you were a net positive. Because I am a reasonable person, I will listen to suggestions you have about this, assuming you are agreeable to the overall principle and framework. I will gladly answer questions you have about it. But tread carefully with this - it is the first chance for you to demonstrate you're absorbing the larger message of this block. Assuming you are agreeable and get unblocked, I would see violations of this restriction, of which I'd hope there would be none, generally being met with a series of escalating blocks (if I'm the one doing it, I'll likely start at 3 days). As noted if problems are reported from the GOCE, however, that could be a very different situation. In terms of appeal, I would see us being able to revisit elements of this in as few as 3 months assuming there aren't problems (i.e. maybe you can start using your pending changes reviewer permission again which is a nice segue between counter vandalism and content work). If this gradual easing of restrictions works, I think in as little as six months (meaning maybe longer) all editing restrictions could be removed. What do you think? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Some words from 2 uninvolved editors. Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Hi Can I Log In; I was quite surprised to see your account blocked but here we are. No-one wants to exclude you but the admins need to protect the project from disruption, intentional or not. Please treat the conditions of Barkeep49's offer above seriously. If you're unblocked, please concentrate on article work and stay away from obscure behind-the-scenes processes: with respect, you don't appear to have enough WP experience or the maturity to involve yourself in these areas of the project. On the positive side, your copy-editing has been good so I hope you'll stay active at the GOCE and continue working in article space to build up some editing experience. Copy-editing is a great way to learn about what's acceptable in Wikipedia articles and article-writing can build skills in researching, quoting and referencing, which are all useful skills outside WP. You could look upon this block as a learning experience; we all make mistakes sometimes. I hope we'll see you at the GOCE again. Cheers and good luck, Baffle☿gab 05:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Well I didn't expect to see this when I came to your talk page to say thanks about Koeri but I'll reiterate what Baffle gab says and I'll add my own endorsement that certainly in areas like copy editing you are going the extra distance. I declined to revdel a copyvio as I couldn't see enough of the source material (Google books snippet) so you made that extra effort to find me the necessary material so I could revdel with confidence. Stick to articles and stay away from policy and procedure pages unless it is to ask questions. Nthep (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) What I'm seeing here is a restriction to content creation and other maintanence work related to it. There are 2 types of templates. Thoses used in articles, and those not used in articles. I once came a across {{CHE}} during a copyedit which had an annoying double space which I hated. I even tried to trace down the problem and then just plain abandonded it. If I were ever to revisit this issue and found a solution, would I be permitted to file a TPER? Any touching of templates for use in content is allowed right? There is a regular backlog of semi-protected edit request and COI edit request, all relating to article content for which they are unable to edit, and that makes up most of my talk space edits. Would reviewing of these edit request still be permitted. In terms of other article maintanence I do, sourcing, merging, bare URLs as refernces, just plain cleanup I find neccessary, and uh all the sudden if I find a copyvio. I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. As with the pending changes reviewer, it's commonly known as another basic counter-vandalism user right, I just use it as another reviewing edit request. If the edit request part above is not permitted, you might as well revoke PCR from me. As with IAR and exceptions to this, I hope I never have to use it, if it's very obvious and no one has done a crap about it after 10–15 minutes, I might have to break the restrictions with a possible post-action discussion. Not very obvious, like you said, the helpme templates. Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I would not block you or support a block of you if you IAR and removed content which later had to be revision deleted under revdel reasons 2-4. However, it makes me nervous to put that in writing because I can imagine a scenario where you good faith remove something thinking it will be revdel'ed and then it turns out not to qualify. So let me be clear again on an essential point. I in no way doubt your good faith or sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. However, your good faith efforts have, nonetheless, resulted in repeated disruptive editing. Good faith alone will not be a defense. So sure IAR in certain instances of extreme vandalism. But you better be right. If you're nervous you might not be right use the help-me templates; in most situations 15 minutes is not make or break. Even several hours is not make or break. The spirit of this restriction is to let you lean into what you've done well and go from there. Obviously you can use templates when doing your editing but creating/changing templates is not in the spirit of content creation under what I am suggesting. So no to TPER for now. If you encounter something like what is being discussed at AN right now about a broken ref template causing problems, ping me or use a help-me so the issue can be reported rather than trying to fix the template yourself. Pending changes and edit requests are part content creation, part administrative action. So let's go back to the spirit of the restriction as I am proposing it. In that context, it is not building off your strengths and takes us back into territory, administrative type actions, for which there is evidence of problems. My idea of talking about a loosening of the restriction in as soon as three months, rather than a more typical six months is because this kind of work could serve as a nice bridge between where we're starting and resuming full editing. So far now leave them alone. If it helps I'm happy to revoke PCR until such a time as you could use it again. Cleaning up BARE URLs and handling COPYVIO is a standard part of copy editing so both make sense. But exercise caution. For instance, I would look askance on something like you joining/doing CopyPatrol. I don't understand what I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. means. I think that's everything from your response. Let me know if I missed something or you have further questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. Simpily, questions and clarification regarding the MOS. Please revoke PCR before I "accidentally" use it. I've seen the revision deleteable edits. I've gone on an edit war with a vandal, I've seen this. They were RD2ed, I called oversight. I just found them in the AbuseLog. Can I Log In (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Asking questions about the MOS is absolutely in-line with the spirit of this restriction. Proposing changes to the MOS is not. Does that help clarify. If you tell me that you agree to the restrictions as we've laid them out here, I will remove the block and revoke PCR. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Y and you are not going to see "a second wave". COVID-19 does not have a brain, I do. COVID-19 changes randomly, I can actualy change. Can I Log In (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Can I Log In, you have been unblocked and I have removed PCR. I have formally logged the restriction. It refers back to this conversation as to the intent and meaning of the restrictions. Please do not hesitate to ping me with questions. I wish you good luck with your future editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)