User talk:Accesscrawl/Archives/Archive 2

"Fixing" redirects

Hi, I thought you should know that there is no need to "fix" redirects - in fact the practice is discouraged. Please see WP:NOTBROKEN for more information. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Handmaid's Tale

Please explain why:

a)You post about citizens of Gilead, when we know nothing about what the citizenship qualifications are?

b) you consider it important to have a separate, short sentence about surviving victims of the bomb?

c) you post a reference to a badly written and wholly uninformative website as a fourth reference to something that is unchallenged?

d) you can justify the reversion as "per talk" when at the time of your post their were three opinions expressed at the talk page, and only one of those was against my opinion?

I would also ask whether you are willing to assert that your edit was not invited by either Anumap or MBlaze Lightninng. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? The discussion is about the godparents-related paragraph that you were edit-warring over, not these other issues. You did a wholesale revert and so I reverted you back. You could have fixed the other issues without removing the sourced paragraph. Luckily for you, Anupam did it for you. There are three users who oppose your removal of the paragraph on the talk page. The only one who supported you was a user who just created an account.[1] You are aware of WP:SOCK, no? Accesscrawl (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name the three contributors on talk, before the timestamp of your reversion, who opposed my edits (I removed no paragraph: did you even read what you were editing?)

No, you did a wholesale reversion (revert is a verb, not a noun) so you are responsible for the material that you put (back) on the article. So go on, explain why you did those things.

I hope you have some evidence behind that accusation of sockpuppetry. I consider it a slander.

I note that you declined to make the confirmation I asked of you. Enough said. Kevin McE (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I declined to answer your ridiculous question because that's what it is - a ridiculous question. The Handmaid's Tale is one of the most popular shows on TV right now so I've had that article watchlisted for a very long time. I noticed your edits were disruptive and against consensus so that's why I reverted you. Having a comment on the talk page is not the only form of disagreement pal - other editors reverted your removal, showing their disagreement with you. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which question was ridiculous? The ones that asked you to justify material you put onto the page, the one about your edit note justification, or the enquiry as to whether you had read what you were editing? Please do explain what you find ridiculous about whichever one you would so describe, because all of them to my mind deal with the essence of what makes Wikipedia viable project.

You said that your edit was per the talk page: you need to either demonstrate how that was true or to retract and apologise. At the time of your edit (reintroducing all sorts of error into the page, which you have not yet explained) the weight of opinion expressed at the talk page was against the change you made. That shows a thorough lack of respect for the process of talk. The vast majority of editors on that episode summary have not considered any mention of baptism to be relevant, as I have demonstrated at talk. You said, "There are three users who oppose your removal of the paragraph on the talk page," but when I asked you to identify who those three were at the time of your edit, you were apparently unable to: do you have any intention of acting with either consistency or decency here? Kevin McE (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better reread my comment to look for your answer. I'm not going to repeat myself. Consider following the discussion talk page where I have responded. Not here. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2016 in Indian television

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 2016 in Indian television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on an article that is incomplete over a significant period of time, please use your user-space (i.e. User:Accesscrawl/2016 in Indian television) or draft space. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super 30

Hi. Please template users after reverting. Cheers ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for bringing to attention the need to change tonality of isha foundation page.

Regstuff (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pradeep Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gpkp, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

NitinMlk (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions for Michael Jackson

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to Michael Jackson.
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stampede at Funeral of Qasem Soleimani

Hello, Accesscrawl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stampede at Funeral of Qasem Soleimani".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of My Editing On Maraji's page

Please can you explain to me why you removed my entire conttibution to Maraji's page. My addition was accurate and not rubbish. Chinedum Maduemezia (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the additions to sustain, add reliable sources too. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How will I add reliable sources? Please also kindly tell me why and how thdy weren't reliable. Mosg of the stuff I edited were what Maraji talked about in a very popular interview on Rubbin' Minds with thd guy who currently hosts the fifth season of Big Brother Naija. Chinedum Maduemezia (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Naresh Tikait for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naresh Tikait is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naresh Tikait until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]