Jump to content

User talk:"Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome!

Hello, "Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! "Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Journal of New Zealand Studies (December 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MicrobiologyMarcus was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
does not demonstrate notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 00:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MicrobiologyMarcus: Hi, in relation to Draft:Journal of New Zealand Studies, I've added some more content. My understanding was that indexing by Scopus was sufficient to meet WP:NJOURNALS C1. Can you give me some hints as to what kinds of improvements or sources I should be looking for? "Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJOURNALS is an essay and not policy or guideline. Further, note under § Remarks that there is no consensus in the broader community for this being a suitable notability criteria from Criterion 1 (C1) 1.b) that I believe you are referring to above. A lot of your citations are to the journal website itself and not to WP:SECONDARY sources that will assist in establishing notability under WP:GNG. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MicrobiologyMarcus: Hi, I've added a number of articles in the popular press covering research published in the journal and resubmitted. I look forward to your opinion of my updates. "Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a list of other things does not transfer notability, see WP:Notability is not inherited. All you've done is add a list of citations that the journal has published, that doesn't add to the article about the subject. And the statement that these have been highly cited is not actually supported by linking to the articles themselves. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 19:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Journal of New Zealand Studies (January 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LittlePuppers was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
All of the references here appear to either be primary sources, or not discuss the journal itself. While both of these kinds of sources can be useful in some situations, they do not show notability. See WP:NJOURNAL.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
LittlePuppers (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

block appeal

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

"Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account is currently blocked and has been for a while. I created this account for work-related edits. My main account is User:Stuartyeates‬, which is reasonably well established. I probably should have put Template:User alternate acct but it didn't occur to me. I've been using alts for a while, such as User:Not your siblings' deletionist and User:Stuartyeates (code test). I'm aware that any restrictions on my main account apply to my alts and don't believe I've ever crossed any of the lines in the SOCK policy. I've been using both this account and User:Stuartyeates‬ quite actively on wikidata recently, see wikidata:User contributions for "Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream and wikidata:User contributions for Stuartyeates. I'd like this account unblocked so I can use it for work-related things as I was before the block. I'm aware of the COI policy and don't believe I'm in breach of it, though I'm happy to be far more rigorous about declaring COI if that's a problem. "Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have an extreme number of accounts. There's simply no way you need that many. I could see you having at most two or three. Yamla (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is an alternative account of Stuartyeates.

"Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:As blocking admin, what are your thoughts on lifting the block only after Stuartyeates declares their alternate account(s) on their user talk page and with the firm commitment to declaring WP:COI? I note that you did not block the master account so I guess you may be willing to consider this. --Yamla (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: you'll need to explain what you were doing with the multiple other accounts and I think we'll need you to declare all your accounts. It's not the crime of the century (hence not blocking your main account) but some of the things you were doing were time-wasting or mildly disruptive. @Yamla there was a thread on cu-l in March that you might find illuminating. Courtesy ping for Spicy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

[edit]

@HJ Mitchell:@Yamla:@Spicy:

I don't have a list of all my alts, but the ones I can remember are below. For obvious reasons my recollection of recent ones is clearer than those from twenty years ago. There are at least two more accounts with hundreds of talk page creations, but for the life of me I can't remember the account names.

When I read 'disruptive' in the policy I was thinking in terms of edits, it didn't occur to me that merely creating usernames might be disruptive (but clearly it has been) and I didn't pick up on it because I couldn't see it.

Happy to tag the accounts and every page I've touched with my work-related account.

Active

[edit]

Blocked

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Not sure that these count as alts, but listing there here for completeness

These were the set up for a joke I was planning to pull this coming Christmas:

Listing this here for completion

In retrospect, I wish that the blocking admin (User:Kinu) had been clearer / stronger on this block.At the time it felt like encouragment, but I should not have continued.

This is the account I use for tangentially work-related stuff. Probably should have used User:Stuartyeates (work) or something.

This one was clearly a mistake on my part. Username is lifted from a news article title.

Created to raise a technical issue with the upcoming IP usernames. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=IP_Editing%3A_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation%2FIP_Info_feature%2FFeedback&diff=26407451&oldid=26256700 / https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2023-27459-O41

Used for checking algorithmic matching on wikidata (it didn't work as I expected)

That's all that I can remember. "Fish & Chip" flavoured ice cream (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%22Fish_%26_Chip%22_flavoured_ice_cream&oldid=1235679355"