User talk:Aesthetic Writer

January 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Night on Bald Mountain have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Night on Bald Mountain was changed by Aesthetic Writer (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.924531 on 2022-01-09T07:27:32+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your edits regarding the infoboxes of music biographies are angering local editors, and don't think I didn't notice that you are perusing my edit history and manually undoing my edits, specifically the short descriptions of Australian prime ministers. You need to stop. Thrakkx (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Cello, you may be blocked from editing. Kpddg ^(talk) 04:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop sifting through my edit history, policing my edits, and reverting those which you do not understand. Thrakkx (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Aesthetic Writer! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Grimes2 (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

There's a discussion on my talk to explain my revert. You seem to misread the guideline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my first language: I don't understand the one line on your brandnew user page. I'm interested in how you - a new user as of today, and making good changes (Monteverdi ...) - come up with a belief that was strange already in 2010, but certainly doesn't work in 2022: that composers are somehow different from other creative minds. - Also: there is no need to reach a consensus if all agree anyway; a talk page discussion is needed only if an edit gets reverted. Please keep things simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find Disinfobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting infoboxes that were stable, and stop adding the hidden message. I'd hate to report you. There are discretionary sanctions out, and if you know disinfobox, you'll know that, too. All unrest in the field of infoboxes is unwanted, both directions, - we call that "disruptive". Peace, please. Bishonen, please watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletions

Hi, you are in great danger of being reverted (and warned) if, as at Eric Gill, you delete materials without supplying any kind of edit comment.

It is good practice to supply an edit comment for every edit you make, even if it's only "copyedit" or "rm surplus ext link" – it need not be long.

Unexplained edits automatically attract other editors' attention as it is a typical behaviour of vandals and one-time visitors, so, best avoided.

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 2

Please start using edit summaries and responding to questions from other editors on your talk page. This is the minimum communication Wikipedia requires from editors. valereee (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Eden

I reverted your edit here because you removed a valid template without any explanation. I see that you joined the site only four days ago but you have already done 461 edits. Many of them utilise functionality that I wouldn't expect a new editor to know about. If you have an existing account, you need to record it on your user page and mention the differences between the two; and vice-versa.

You have been warned several times already about your usage of the site but have so far failed to WP:ENGAGE with anyone. That is a requirement if you are challenged per WP:LISTENTOUS, which I suggest you read. I can only add to the complaints made above by Gerda Arendt, Thrakkx, Kpddg, Valereee, Chiswick Chap, and Simplexity22. You need to be very careful indeed about how you continue or your account is likely to be blocked. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of warnings and the lack of response, I'd think admin attention was the next logical step. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to that list! I'm finding I have to revert or adjust an awful lot of your edits, just from what hits my watchlist. This is a nuisance. The problems are very varied, but from today's crop: We don't link London or England. Things do not have to be "notable" as something to be categorized as that thing (WP:OCAT). These are pretty basic. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to determine it, but I have a strong reason to believe that this user is the same as the IP address that was hounding me last month. They share the same behaviors: policing and reverting my edits (sometimes from months ago), showing an advanced knowledge of policies and guidelines, and evidently not speaking English as a first language. Thrakkx (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to concentrate, because I was reviewing articles and categories for improvisation, to help understanding on descriptions, sources, links and other means, basically in scope. Please, I need for edit with precaution. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The list of editors is growing, Johnbod! I have another list which contains functions, templates, policies and guidelines used by Aesthetic Writer with such familiarity that they are apparently second nature. I would like to know how a "new editor" can possibly know about and freely use these items, some of them completely new to me:

deletion sorting
flag guidelines
hatnote usage
honorific prefix variable
infobox parameter settings and usage
list citation policy
moving page over a redirect
red link guidelines
redirect targets
MOS:INDICSCRIPT
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG
MOS:NOBOLD
MOS:OVERLINK
MOS:SANDWICH
MOS:SMALL
Template:Copyvio
Template:IMSLP
WP:AFCSW
WP:COPYLINK
WP:DISINFOBOX
WP:ELNO
WP:JFN
WP:NOR
WP:RPP
WP:RS
WP:SDH
WP:SPS

Can we please have a response per WP:ENGAGE including an explanation of how you have come to possess so much knowledge of the site and also why you are frequently making contentious edits that, as John points out, are a nuisance and need to be reverted? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to explain what I did,

I did because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and other means whatsoever, since I tried to defend against their contributors of Wikipedia, before I did something that request I preferred. I edit some infoboxes of people (which whom are notable), I added links to IMSLP to Stravinsky works (which was recently added in January 2022 in Canada were is hosted). But since thrakkx, removing some flags from infoboxes of military personnel (mostly for U.S.), other contributors restored their flags and icons, including Bipin Rawat and Alois Brunner, and for some short descriptions (excluding lists). Since Thrakkx conflicted my edits to Leopold Mozart using my IP address, also I restored this version for "Men" article as unconstructive editing.

For Gerda Arendt, I'd removing some infoboxes of composers without consensus via talk page it would be necessary.

Since I removed and/or replace links from YouTube which had been identified as copyright violation, then I removed two honorific prefixes for South African presidents (which DrKay removed "His Excellency" as unsourced material) and one for UN secretary general Gutteres (which didn't have a presidential role in Portugal). But I apologized what I did to some contributors.

I'd edit, revert or modify by years of politicians, but quickly reverted due to RfC discussion for Australian prime ministers. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what you've done and to some extent why but how do you as a new editor know all of the things in the list above? Only an experienced editor could know and readily use all of that. Do you have another account and, if so, what is called? I'm starting to feel a bit like Keir Starmer must do! No Great Shaker (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have one, but only my IP address that I edit, I need to focus based on Wikipedia's policies on BOLD, revert and discuss, cycle, three-revert rule and others using my essay. Recently, I added Japanese footnotes for video games, and I right to do that? Recently, I removed some Indic scripts for Indian articles per manual of style. Aesthetic Writer (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also in my native language is English and Tagalog (to my people who live me here in the Philippines), so I manage how to taught me on the internet as French and German. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that you are calling English one of your native languages. Based on the above discussion, you seem to be not fluent. For instance, Also in my native language is English and Tagalog (to my people who live me here in the Philippines), so I manage how to taught me on the internet as French and German is pretty incomprehensible to me. Your user page looks like a machine translation. valereee (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is less which language you speak but which language you listen to. You have been told to not revert stable infoboxes, and still say above that you have a mission there, citing the misunderstood "consensus". Please understand: stop reverting. All movements in the field of infoboxes can be understood as disruptive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 3

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for likely-unintentional disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}. valereee (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pblock from article space simply to prevent required cleanup. No objection to any other admin lifting once we are sure editor won't cause work for other editors. valereee (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Aesthetic Writer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As per above, I was trying to help for namespaces on Wikipedia, then someone who modify like good contributors in short description. Since I made a disruptive edits as my responsibility for regarding namespaces in each article.

Then I was reviewing Thrakkx's actions for changes/removes short description, infoboxes and hatnotes. Recently, I reverted, restored or undid for list of J. S. Bach's works and some articles for short description. Because it's not just a harassment idea, but only I need for discussion (for consensus) as a WP:BOLD edit.

For Arendt, I'd been misunderstood since it's been modifying the infobox like classical composers, without seeking new consensus.

Recently, I replied that my languages are incomprehensive, Because Wikipedia is a multilingual site over 325 languages (because I edit this French article for Jimmy Wales's picture for infobox) for which official Wikipedias have been created under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation. Aesthetic Writer (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This really doesn't make much sense at all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2022 (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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jet Boy (film) (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

not seeing significant independent coverage

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jet Boy (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jet Boy (film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aesthetic Writer! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jet Boy (film)

Hello, Aesthetic Writer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jet Boy (film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jet Boy (film)

Hello, Aesthetic Writer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jet Boy".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]