Even though you have been here a while, I don't see a welcome message on your Talk page, so here is one that contains some links to key information about Wikipedia. I'm sorry that no one sent one to you when you first registered, as these links may explain a lot of things that have been frustrating.
Hello, AlexanderHovanec, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few important links:
If you'd like some help with editing or otherwise, you can sign up at the new users log, post a question at the Help Desk, or ask me on my talk page.
Please sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. It is a good idea to read the most recent entries at the bottom of the Talk page of an existing article before making major changes to it, to see if your proposed change has been discussed before. Before I make a major change to an article, I often make a proposal on the Talk page to see if anyone minds.
Thanks a lot! Thank you for the inclusion of essential links. I'll be sure to refer to these when I encounter trouble, or if I have a question. They'll make the editing process a lot more "facile". Appreciate it. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alexanderhovanec, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Alexanderhovanec! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host)
Please see WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. If an album doesn't meet one of those criteria, it doesn't get an article. In short, just because it has been created by a notable band doesn't give it a place on Wikipedia. I don't see any references. I can't find any. It's hard to support the article's existence without one. With that said, you could work on it in your user space and add any sources you may find here, then move that to the other location when it's ready for prime time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
Then click on "Templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.
Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.
7.Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.
To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.
That helped so much! Thank you! I never knew that feature existed. This'll without a doubt help me in the future and I'll use it from now on. I'm just confused as to why someone else couldn't cite it for me instead of deleting it? I DID provide my sources in edit summaries in which another editor could use to cite it. However, from now on, I'll do as instructed in the image. Thanks again.
No need for discussions. Though I somewhat disagree, I completely understand where you're coming from. They don't provide any sources to their profiles therefore I suppose we don't know where they're getting their info from.
Hello. Let me back up a step and try to explain about what is probably our most important policy, WP:V. Yes, there are some facts that can be accepted without adding a reference, like that the sky is blue on a clear day, or that humans generally have two legs. But most assertions of fact require references to published, third-party, independent sources that are vetted by an editorial board, particularly when they concern a living person. Just because *you* think that you know something is true, or that the statement is made somewhere on social media is not adequate verification for this encyclopedia. See also WP:OR. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, is this a reference to the comment I made about Colleen Ballinger? My mention of "obvious" topics was meant to substitute for widely accepted facts within a following of people, or a "fanbase". For example, a wide variety of forums or discussions on "fan" sites" (or sites that are thought of as non-resourceful here) may list a fact as true, or support a certain idea. In other words, this is what a whole fanbase believes. Not just "me". Most should agree that this most likely means the fact is true--that is, if a majority claim it to be. I know that's not always the case, though! And I certainly know this type of thinking goes against Wikipedia's policies. You've made your point crystal clear. My contributions to Wikipedia will never be added with this logic. "The sky is blue on a clear day"/"humans generally have two legs"... these don't need references, that goes without saying. And I assumed the same went for widely accepted facts with in a group of people. However, you've clarified that supposed facts regarding celebrities DO need adequate sources. I understand Ssilvers. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We have much, much higher standards for written expression and referencing. What a "fanbase believes" must be viewed with extreme caution. Not only is it not accepted as true here, but it is viewed as very possibly erroneous and in need of rock-solid referencing. It is good if you are realizing this, as you seem to be working mostly on articles about living persons, which are most susceptible to erroneous information from social media. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, we cannot cite one Wikipedia page to verify another. Instead, add an outside cite to something like The Wall Street Journal or The Guardian. If you see inconsistencies among Wikipedia pages that touch on the same fact, make sure that all of them are cited to the best sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on the discussion I had with Geraldo. I'm just not sure that there are many "outstandingly credible" articles (the kind Wikipedia is looking for) that touch on this inconsistency. It's just the name of a character within a children's show. Nothing that would appear in The Wall Street Journal or The Guardian. Therefore, I wouldn't say there's a way to solve this inconsistency yet. Thanks for the information though. I won't consider citing a Wikipedia to another Wikipedia article, and if an inconsistency occurs, I'll attempt to fix it in the best way that it can be fixed using plausible sources. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the character is not mentioned in WP:Reliable sources like TV Guide at least, then the character should not have an encyclopedia article. If it is mentioned in such sources, then we must use the name that those sources verify as the character's name -- most probably the shorter version of the name. Facts that cannot be verified by sources that are accepted in our guideline, WP:RS should be deleted. The fact that you find a source "plausible" is not enough: *all* sources must satisfy WP:RS. In any case, minor details and trivia are not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT for important information about what belongs in an encyclopedia article and what does not. The fact that bad or unencyclopedic information sneaked into some other article is not a good reason to degrade another article with it. See WP:OSE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please note that the I did not add the character or any information in any of the articles. Other users seem to have taken to this task. Also, this character does not have a Wikipedia article. He is simply included in a "list of characters" Wikipedia article, as well as a "filmography section" on the page of an actor. His full name is simply listed differently and in a contrary manner. If I shorten the name to just a first and last name, other users may feel like the inclusion of the character's multiple middle names is necessary. I attempted to fix the inconsistency but Geraldo reverted my edit, therefore I'd love to here his input as well. Last but not least, I understand that trivial facts aren't encyclopedic. But like I said, if I simple the information down, other users may feel as if I've deleted valuable information. This dilemma isn't even all that immense, though. Like I said, I hadn't added any of the inconsistencies to begin with, I was just wondering if it should be fixed. Perhaps they'll be smoothed out over time! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that you did not add the character or info. I'm just pointing out what we should be aiming for. As you become more experienced here, you will get a feeling for what trivia and WP:Fancruft should be deleted. Besides WP:NOT, see WP:WEIGHT. As for the list of characters, shouldn't it only include characters that have their own articles? I imagine that Geraldo will answer your questions either here or on his Talk page, so you should check there from time to time to see if he has had answered. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think minor or recurring characters from a show typically possess their own articles. For example, many characters on the List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters Wikipedia do not seem to possess their own Wikipedia articles. Though I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any updates or notifications from Geraldo on the subject. However the dilemma's resolved, I hope to learn from it so that I can fix any other inconsistencies I spot, and I believe I've found quite a few in the past. (BTW, the first name is confirmed in a tweet [and I know you said social media does not count as a plausible source but it's] from the show itself. One of the middle names is confirmed in an episode from the show. The other middle name is unconfirmed anywhere. And the last name is confirmed numerous times throughout the show.) -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the show has tweeted the information, it is generally better to cite the information to a secondary source, like a newspaper or magazine review of the show. It's easy to search Google for news sources; often a good source will pop right up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to Twenty One Pilots have been deleted. Please do not add middle names to people's names, unless you add a citation to a WP:RS that specifically states the information. Good sources would include a national newspaper article about the person, such as The New York Times, or a reliable magazine source, like Variety or Time magazine. I notice that people have been warning you about your failure to cite your sources for more than two years! If you continue to add information without citing your sources, you will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Frankly, adding middle names and family names is not very important to the encyclopedia, whereas adding important facts about the course of people's careers, if cited to a WP:Reliable source, is useful. See also WP:NOT and WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary I've been citing reliable sources all the time! The past is the past, but as of 2017 I've consistently succeeded to do so! Credit where it's due! I suppose the only time I do not cite my sources would be for middle names. I understand the whole middle name dilemma, though. Unnecessary as they may be, I don't see the harm in adding them. Nonetheless, I'll discontinue for now. If you saw my Chris Salih edit though, I indeed provided a credible source, as you've stated one should do. It's exactly the sort of citation you've referenced. It's from a database--not necessarily a "newspaper" but as far as I know, databases are reliable. As for Colleen Ballinger, I did not provide a source simply because the fact is painfully obvious to audiences. However, I see the Wikipedia 'police' are very particular on sources and now know to provide them, even if it's a middle name. Yes, I'll refrain from adding full names for now, though. I understand what you're getting at.
Again, the edit reversions you see are just from those who feel middle names are unnecessary. Any information you see about me not providing valid sources are either old or mistakes. I know how to do so and shall continue.
That would be nice if it were true, but it is false. Your recent edits show that you continue to add middle names without a WP:Reliable source. See, for example, this and this. Not only is it not "obvious", but it is totally unreferenced trivia. If you think this was appropriate, then I believe that Wikipedia is not a good fit for you. BTW, whitepages is not a reliable source, and if the only source is social media, you should wait until you have a newspaper or national magazine article to cite. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the recent edits. No, I see what you mean. The recent edits have been a stream of unsourced 'middle-name-ery'. I'll stop. Now, about social media--if the celebrity specifically denotes their full name in their username or in a post, would that not be reliable? As they're directly stating this information? And as for online databases, you mean they aren't completely reliable? I checked the guidelines; however, I've seen my fair share of errors on there so ONCE again, I see where you're coming from. I'll keep a look out for newspapers or national magazines.
Yes, it's really necessary. See WP:Talk. Your failure to do so indicates that you are not willing to abide by the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm willing to. I'd never wish to go against the policies of Wikipedia. WP:Talk was an article I wasn't even acquainted with. As I said before, I will be leaving my signature from now on. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the dilemma here. The edit can be supported once a very accurate and reliable source has been provided. I understand. I'll see if I can uncover any. If I can't then I suppose it isn't a worthy edit. Update: My apologies for placing the surname "Bryant" in the introductory paragraph. Though Shannon and Leto were in fact born to Anthony L. Bryant, it doesn't seem as if anyone ever took his surname, therefore it wouldn't make sense to place (born as "Bryant") in the introduction. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was very thorough to make sure my sources were accurate. While some may be "iffy" (reserved as 'back up' sources to add to the support of more credible sources), some are sources in which Wikipedia moderators seek. Also, instead of blatantly removing information, you could always try and seek a reliable source yourself! The contributions are widely regarded as true from articles all around. News articles, which are accept in Wikipedia, have been cited. Does any of the information appear to be false? Which sources seem to be the worst and which seem to be the best? It also seems as if you didn't read all the information you erased – for example, Leto's half siblings. Google search Jared Leto and the box on the right provided by Wikipedia is even sure to list the siblings, which you removed from the article! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am disappointed that you don't seem to be getting it: Do not WP:EDIT WAR, or you will most certainly be blocked from editing. Instead, use the article's Talk page to argue your case for the changes you wish to make. If you can build a WP:CONSENSUS to make those changes, then, and only then, can you reinstate them in the article. Secondly, stop using "iffy" sources, and stop adding information when you don't have WP:Reliable sources. Please read WP:RS very carefully before you edit again. If you don't play close attention to that guideline, you will continue to make bad edits and eventually be blocked from editing. Thirdly, many of the edits you made that Earthh deleted are inappropriate even if true. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site; noting half siblings, like middle names, are not essential in most cases. If they are mentioned only on social media or in gossip sources, then they should not be named. See WP:NOT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I wouldn't want an "edit war". I just thought the information seemed relevant. I took the time to read all the links provided and was sure that many of the sources were accurate when editing. Though I admit I found a few "loopholes", I truly don't wish to go against any of the site's policies. Though I seemed to meet the guidelines, I must've missed a few spots. I also would not have thought listing siblings counted as "gossip", so that's another error on my part. If the information that's been reverted is nonessential, then it does not need to be added. Lesson learned, I'll be even more careful the second time around. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Bobby Roe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1745427/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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 removed 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. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heavily contest. I would argue that this is over exaggerated. Some of the phrasing can't even be reworded, as it's as simple as "He was in the UCLA." It was literally a few sentences which slipped past me in the process, and I had forgotten to reword. But instead of making a fuss, despite the zero tolerance policy, there's no need to delete a whole entire article and deny Wikipedia of potential information it could possess on its site. It can simply be re-worded. It's as easy as that. Quick and efficient. And I indeed did my best to rephrase the information. I'll be more cautious on my end. I should've expected as much from the admins of Wikipedia. My apologies. No need to delete the article. I left a full statement on the talk page as well. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Roe until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
We don't need articles on everyone who has decided to find an odd way to become famous for being famous.
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:Jonathan Allen Harchick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Alright, I understand all of your arguments. However I have provided references that suggest notability. Jon has been interviewed by a few news outlets and I've referenced them in the article. Additionally, "famous for the sake of being famous" is very inaccurate. Not once has the subject ever stated that was his intention, that is solely opinion. That's like saying Jonathan Mann has only succeeded at a world record for the sake of being famous. Therefore, I still argue the article should not be deleted as I've countered a great deal of its criticism. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I gotta say, once again, I indeed understand your argument. I saw the discussion from 2006 and apparently something went down. But a lot has happend since then. Maybe something was "self-promotional" back in the day but truly noteworthy things have occurred. Records and news outlets included. I don't know if you, "Robert", are familiar with the thread from 2006 where people argued he was self-promotional but as of today, this isn't the case at all. For now, I'll leave the draft to be deleted and discarded though. Thanks for your input. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Harchick (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please I want draw you attention about what deletion discussions are. First, it will be very helpful to read the Deletion policy on Wikipedia. Then Deletion process and its subset Deletion discussion both are guidelines and very important. With regard to the last one Deletion discussion I want remind you deletion discussion is not determined by number of votes. You have recently voted two times each in this discussion and also here on your article. In another discussion you've not cited any policy or guideline to support your view but you're only arguing that if the article is to be deleted then article A and article B must be deleted too because they look alike. This is not good argument. There are very helpful essays which explain how to support keep and what we should say in a deletion discussion; like this one and there's equally helpful ones which explain what we shouldn't say and why; like this one. Please read them and understand them before further voting twice or making such kind of arguments in deletion discussions. Thanks —Ammarpad (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would've expected that someone with the position of an administrator would've realized that I wasn't voting two times. That wasn't my intention at all. I'm quite aware of how deletion discussions work. I was simply adding another bullet point so the organization of the discussion would be more efficient. It was a brand new idea so I figured I place it further down in the article. So know that I wasn't attempting to "gain votes". Voting shouldn't even be a factor in deletion discussions. It's all about the argument. I'm entirely aware that three poorly written keep requests can be out-weighted by a valid delete request.
Second off, your mention of comparison to other articles is entirely incorrect. I'm not at all detesting the other articles' creations. I was asking what they had that another article didn't have. No matter how many times I ask this in a deletion article though, administrators never seem to be able to answer, which is displeasing. I was pointing out that all three articles were quite similar. Despite the similarities, I wanted to know what qualifications Articles A and B met, and what article C was missing. I couldn't have made that clearer.
You also mentioned obligations to open other articles. I think a helpful staff member who's open to reasoning and examples would have indeed been obligated to open the other articles to at least understand where I'm coming from. I'm sure laziness wasn't the problem; however, it was a key factor to a point I was making and many administrators in the past have at least had the decency to take the extra step and investigate an example I was providing.
It's very relevant. It should at least be considered, why is Article A and B accepted by Wikipedia while Article C is not when they're all similar? I was asking why "C" didn't meet the criteria and why the others did, and thus far an answer has not been given, and it's clear an answer will not be given. Very disappointing.
So this is simply a response contradicting both accusations. I honor Wikipedia and its criteria and wouldn't wish for any complications. I understand the administration department of Wikipedia needs to be thorough so I can definitely grasp what all the stress is about. I can agree with a certain amount of statements. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jonathan Harchick, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know it seems as if I've made a lot of edits on Wikipedia, but I still get very confused by its complexity! So my apologies for recreating the article. And thanks for the sympathy. The feature you've linked about improving his coverage on other articles is a feature I had never known about. Pretty nifty. I'm not sure if you read the biography on Harchick I created but it stated that he authored a few fraudulent books in order to pay rent. I also noticed that on a few Wikipedia articles, his poorly made books are actually used as notability references, which is pretty humorous to me. I should definitely do something about that. But as I do still wish to pursue his biography, I might take you up on your offer. Cheers. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to Twenty One Pilots does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying, but what does "format" mean when what you're actually doing is copy editing to create a new paragraph? A bit of clarity would be helpful, but thanks for making an effort. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AlexanderHovanec. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
@AlexanderHovanec:, I've read through your most recent two replies to this ANI thread (here and here) and rather than continuing what has the appearance of a one-against-many conversation there, I'm responding here. I don't want to contribute to any feeling that you're being ganged up on, and I fear I have already done so inadvertently.
I am encouraged that you seem to understand the essence of the sourcing point that I and other editors have been making but I'm concerned with those particular responses. You talked at length about your point of view on the notability on celebrity middle names, a point that was at best mentioned in passing by others. In fact, you were the first to bring this up in that thread when you said that the editor starting the thread seemed to have a "phobia" to middle names. Regardless of whatever interactions you and Walter Görlitz had previously had on the subject, this borderline disparagement of another editor came in the same post you asked others to assume good faith about yourself. This creates the appearance of a straw man argument for the whole notability point you are trying to make. I would advise you to abandon it, especially since it has nothing to do with what you have been advised. Stick to the sourcing guidelines and you'll be fine.
To make that thread go away, what you really need to add is one short, simple post saying you understand the problem in sourcing middle names and you intend to comply with the applicable guidelines in the future. I believe that you are saying something close to that already but the verbose nature of the most recent replies obscure it to the point that it is possible your good faith in the future may remain in doubt in the minds of many observers. Making a concise post such as suggested here would remove such doubts and go a good way towards removing the lingering threat to your editing status. Best wishes. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good you got a reference. Canned message, bad to do generally, worse when controversial. Name enhancements fall under WP:BLPPRIVACY. Her facebook page looks OK for that but with respect to your edit history comment see WP:BURDEN. I generally make a quick verification pass on some stuff but spend little time on things I consider unimportant to an article like what someones middle name is. I did notice that the name you originally added was not the same as the referenced one, hyphens matter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's extremely embarrassing... most sources don't include the hyphen however apparently her social media does include the hyphen, and no one knows her name like she does.
WP:BURDEN -- of course it's not anyone's primary obligation to clean up after people on Wikipedia, but it just seems so sluggish and lackluster of the administration to blatantly revert information (that's most likely true) due to a missing source, without giving an effort to find one. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about your analysis of Paul's source. I linked a video and you were quick to revert the edit, in a time that is less than the duration of the video linked. Did you watch it? For Worthy, a reliable and Wikipedia-accepting source WAS linked, however no direct middle names were designated in the source. 'Just that Worthy's mother's maiden name was the same as his supposed middle name -- as was his father's first name. This was why I cited that in particular source. However, there indeed weren't any direct middle names mentioned, therefore I can understand that reversion in particular. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't watch the video then, have now, info is not in it. I did search the text in both cases for direct support of additions and didn't find it. I did find a name error which I fixed. You are using references, good, make sure that they actually support the info they purport to support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I watched the video through too, and yeah, there was no direct mention of the middle names. I just wanted to be clear you weren't just automatically writing my sources off. Because of the middle names actually were in there, then I'd have been in the right. Yeah, 2018, I'll try to get better at sources. I only add material if I believe there's a source out there to support the info – and in this case, I originally thought both sources would've been fine. My error. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, whatever you're talking about must've happend a long, long time ago. Also, your section name is ethniccelebs.com, however your complaint is that I used famousbirthdays.com. I think you may be mistaken. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, not me. I'm just another editor who works on the page, and who keeps watch on the related pages. The main page has 50 watchers and 38 of them look at recent edits, and you are doing very good work throughout. I hadn't even heard of her until May of this year, when someone tried to make the page the primary 'Poppy' page, which was knocked down pretty quick but resulted in changing the name of the page to 'Poppy (singer)'. Her recent career is an interesting project, and I (and probably you and others) expect it to really take off at some point (it's accelerating now, but hasn't had the large push yet, I think "the industry" is seeing if they can pull off this long tour and come back for more). Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Here is a nice Poppy holiday gift if you haven't seen it yet. Apparently "rare" and will likely be taken down soon, once found, as the views are growing rapidly after sitting there in the low numbers for a month. I copied it to my phone vid, to save when it goes away. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "holiday gift". 😂 This is going to sound crazy but I actually just discovered the cover today, so it's pretty coincidental you linked that. When I discovered it today, it was amongst a whole archive of unreleased music -- pretty much all original pieces. Full songs/instrumentals -- everything really. I was considering adding a section about it on the new discography page, but I don't have a lot of time to be editing as of now. It's also funny you mention renaming the Poppy article because I was considering looking into changing it, or at least starting a discussion about it. But now that you mention it, the plant may be just as 'popular' as the 'singer' therefore maybe I should refrain altogether. Last but not least, I have to say that I'm not as big of a Poppy fan as I am of compiling discographies. It's just a hobby of mine to list all of the songs an artist may compose, and Poppy happens to be one of my current projects. I'm also quite familiar with her YouTube page though, and have done my best to add what I know about her to the article. You just seem to be the most prevalent editor, and do a great job at eliminating vandalism or incorrect content. So keep it up! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I was a day late and a euro short on my "gift". Thought that counts? The singer's covers, are they usually listed on the page? Some of her best singing comes in on the older covers, such as the "Want U Back", "Losing my Religion", and others (there's a "Skyfall" cover floating around). I've almost never added to discography pages, so you're the expert on that subject. Yes, at most the singer and the plant are co-primary, as people would argue long-term significance in making the singer the primary. Will be an interesting RM at some point. Again, happy holidays (this one, is Festivus, so please put a clock in a bag and nail it to a wall). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very ashamed to have been away from Wikipedia this long. I used to be on everyday but the holidays have me busy. Props to the Seinfeld reference BTW. That last link of your's has me stunned, was Poppy really engaged in high productions like that at such a young age? That must've been way before her career kicked off. I HAVE to know if you're familiar with [this link]. I really am considering the creation of a Wikipedia page devoted to unreleased Poppy material. Perhaps on the main discography page, a redirect link leading to the latter. There are simply so many hidden "gems" in which the fandom probably have not heard of. Last but not least, I hope all of these videos you're linking me don't get "shut down" or removed from the YouTube platform. It'd certainly be a shame. Thanks for thinking of me. 👏 -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, will explore it in a couple of days (off myself for a short holiday trip). I'm grabbing some of these on the phone, and caught "Losing my Religion" before it was taken down. I'd expect all of them to be gone at some point, although others may "get" them and rerelease from time to time on youtube or somewhere. Yes, it would be nice to have a complete list of covers and these kind of vids. She's not really that young, she'll be 23 on January 1st, and became active as the Poppy most people know somewhere near the end of 2014, so she probably did these other vids and songs while 18 or 19 (just guessing). There's another one with her singing with a guy playing guitar and looking admiringly at her, and another with a friend doing a duet running in a field, all with the dark natural look. That bleaching has to be hard on the hair, I'd guess. Apparently she did leave home at 15 to go to Los Angeles, and I've seen vids of her singing in an early apartment (a long way from the mansion(s) she "knows", on a knowing level, that she'll have someday, probably not too far off). An interesting career, and it'd be good to document it's early progression, so a good idea on a new page. And just to be clear, I am not in a cult led by Poppy (she makes us say that). lol. Enjoy, and thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely a lot to explore on the page, but you're twenty times the Poppy fan I (or any commoner) would ever be. I just think you'd really appreciate some of the content on this page, what with all the trivial links you've been sending me! As you specify below – "pre-2015" song list – I'm guessing you've skimmed through it. Like I mentioned earlier, I love Poppy, and all forms of synth/pop/electronic music, but I love compiling discography even more. Coming across all these new pieces of Poppy made me ecstatic as you can imagine. Nonetheless, I'm shocked at your span of knowledge, so continue adding to the Poppy Wikipedia as more information comes out! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Poppy page edits, nice. I missed all of that, which is what a collab project like Wikipedia is all about. On the earlier Poppy covers, they've become a sub-genre in themselves, and your idea of a comprehensive listing of her known material will give understanding readers who do find links or recordings the range of this singer. She's settling into the Poppy character (not a character as much as a real and expressive side of herself) and seems to be seeking to perfect a particular vocal range that has likely never been so perfected before in the West. Her extended range is also evident in most of her Poppy songs. Then to hear something like her cover of "Want U Back" and the very fast changes of emotions-communicated-per-vocalization gives an idea of what she's capable of and what I expect her to further explore as Poppy at some point. Her quickness in being able to handle and communicate emotional shifts (i.e. the "someone else" line in "Everybody Wants to be Poppy" - a video containing more of her range - and then the instant recovery) seems, when centered, to create the Poppy personality and voice tempo. Anyway, long post shorter, a Wikipedia collection of Poppy pre-2015 song recordings and music videos has much merit. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad you feel a pre-2015 listing would do some justice! I was thinking to myself, if Mr. Kyrn doesn't approve, than it's probably not relevant – but glad you feel it is, because I'd happily agree! :) You seem to be quite the philosopher though – not just a mega-Poppy fan, but also an analytical person in general. Traits I envy! I'm definitely a fan of Poppy's work, and think her vocals - her range - her control over her voice - and her personality, expressiveness, innovative creativity, and new age ideas - are on a heavenly level. She's completely normal and yet totally distant from humanity. Apparently the "character" is supposed to be a "girl who thinks she's an Android" (?) according to Sinclair (which by the way – I'd never dream of being WP:BOLD and doing it myself, but – I totally think he should have a page as well! He's got more credibility than just "being Poppy's 'sidekick'" – know who BØRNS is? Or how about his muse BEFORE Poppy? I forget her name... or just his other works, overall – he simply deserves his own article, given all of his known contributions)...
I don't know, I'm just rambling at this point. But I'm at ease that you agree with my contributions and mindset. Always refreshing to see helpful members in the Wikipedia community. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice compliments and right back at you. I'm just another editor though who catches some things and misses some. I do "see" this artist's future potential and enjoy that someone who is and will further spread such an aware space and intent will become one of the voices of her generation. Yes, Sinclair/Mixter should have a page, and I've red-linked bracketed his name on the Poppy page in the past (it was reverted) in Wikipedia-anticipation that a page would/should/coulda been written. An editor recently tried to put up a Mars Argo page but it was deleted. When she left and dropped the name Mars Argo it left room for Sinclair to put his talents to work elsewhere, and both he and Poppy are extremely "lucky" or "meant to be" that that space opened up. Odds on Sinclair finding such a perfect person to fit his project ideas, and one who contributes to them in an intelligent and creative manner, makes the Poppy/Sinclair duo quite unique in overlapping their creative arts. I've assumed that he will have a page at some point soon, highlighting his production and writing work and his own videos. The Poppy character, at least in the promotional vids and in some songs, seems to be an android who doesn't know she's an android, and Charlotte has been trying to hint at it as well, but in one interview Poppy points out that all humans are computers (on almost all levels accurate) and that's one of the routes they can explore further which is interesting to me. I really enjoy what they did in a devil-may-care attitude that they brought to the new "BBlondeB" video. Poppy and Sinclair have used those fluffy large lettering things in such a way that they've become one of her identifying symbols, and then in that uplifting take-the-fans-on-a-ride vid they pop in the fluffy lettering happily spelling out "Everybody Dies" while people party and dance. Confident enough to play that way with their "brand" showing that they have the long-game in mind. I'm not familiar with Born or his connection to Sinclair (other than his page says he's from Michigan as well. do they know each other or work together?). Thanks for allowing me to opine on this topic, it's a fun one. I'm pretty good at seeing trends, and when Poppy popped on my radar it was instantly apparent that here was not only a very good to great singing and acting talent with an intention to educate and bring people to more awareness and happiness, but that they are long-gaming an expand-societies-envelope art project. Nice to see you and other editors keeping the main and related pages Wikified as well as expanding them almost daily. Lots of page watchers on the main Poppy page, with Wikipedians-in-house both reflecting and anticipating the growing but-still-very-small overall public awareness of the importance and innovative creativity of Poppy, Sinclair, and their associates work. I'll soon further explore the links you suggest, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the equivalent of asking someone to source their statement that "the sky is blue", or that caucasians have a generally lighter skin pigment. Do not make unnecassary edit reversions. Thank you. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to All Star (song), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Additionally, when adding material, you are expected to have a source. Add the source when you add the material. If you can't be bothered to add the source, don't bother adding the material.SummerPhDv2.004:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello AlexanderHovanec: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at It (2017 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Brojam (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame certain users live to revert edits. Besides, you've incorrectly identified an edit war. The inclusion of deleted scenes was not wanted in the plot summary (by a non-admin, should I point out), so I moved it to production. Not only that but both sources were indeed reliable. At this point, you're only reverting edits because my first two edits were reverted, so you're thinking "hm, since the first two edits were reverted, let's disregard logic and assume this third one violates the terms". My edit and inclusion was completely justified, relevant, and in favor of Wikipedia's policies. Again, quite a shame users like yourself prevent a degree of knowledge from being included in Wikipedia articles... you're denying valuable content and basing its removal off a user's personal preference. Shame. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as I already specified, the last edit I made is not worthy of a "warning", nor does it violate anything. It was just as relevant as the puny "Themes" category – just as beneficial to the article as the tiny "Creature design" category. Last but not least, you informed me to use the talk page after I informed another user to do so. He removed a large chunk of info for a blatant and uninformative reason, which seemed like a personal preference. He could've at least got other users' opinions on it. You don't need to add to the talk page every single time you're about to add to an article. What a nuisance. Try and show other users a little more respect. As an admin, you're supposed to be playing a positive and responsible role in the community. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sweet! 😂 I've never received a "barnstar" from anyone before. Glad you're my first, sir. You've made quite a few decent edits too I see. Thanks again! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poppy unreleased discography until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fram (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Logan Paul. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The information is not properly sourced, and it would not belong in the lede even if it were. And don't undo someone just so you can argue with them. Discuss it on the talkpage, or leave it alone.Meters (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on this, and because of all the commotion it should wait until more sources write about the unreleased material and then it can be tried again. Thanks for all the time you spent compiling what will someday be a notable list. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey now, don't sweat it Serge. You're acting as if threatened. It was just a simple question whether the information was relevant or not. I understand that it was agreed the information isn't Wikipedia-material, and it won't be added again. No need for seventy warnings. 😅 And thanks Randy. It's no problem. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago? You mean the little middle name issue? Well, yeah, but the information I added to the Poppy discography article was sourced in a few places. As a matter of fact, I source all my information now. And if even more sources is what you would've wanted, then I could've easily tracked some down. Your actions just seemed somewhat preference-driven -- as if you had something against the information while others could've found it relevant. I wasn't reverting your edit to "re-add" the information, I was just reverting your edit-revert to see if we could talk in out on the Talk Page. And yeah, the information you provided there is great.
It's fine though, really. No need to get defensive. You're the admin, so you get to decide what's worthy and what isn't. I won't add anymore trivial information to the article for now. Only information that is properly sourced and information that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well... upon further inspection, I guess I only had two sources. But give credit where it's due! I mean it wasn't completely unsourced. Like I said, I could've easily found more. But I don't think sourcing is really the issue anymore... it's just a matter of relevance. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But as I've since pointed out on the talk page - which should have already been apparent to you had you read the AFD discussion - was that there was already a clear consensus again merging the unreleased information into the discography article. I mean read what happened. You proposed a "merge compromise", and not a single person replied "Yeah, you're right, let's merge it." The delete stances kept coming, and none of the prior delete stances revised their stance to "merge". You even asked for more input in the AFD, in which you were told not to merge it without third party sources. It's like you didn't bother reading anything anyone was saying to you. Sergecross73msg me20:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. 🤔 Yeah, I guess it would seem that way. But I merged the page before a final consensus was reached. Plus, the information was revised/corrected by someone (initials being E.C.). Not that this justifies anything. But it's not like I'm resisting either. Sure, I reverted your reversion, but at this point I'm fine with the rejection of the information. I was never opposed to anything anyone said on the page.
In other words... it seems like you're most irritated with the fact that it seems like I'm disregarding everything everyone told me in the deletion discussion. And I guess it really does appear that way, but that's not true. It's all good now. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally irritated about the edits made without sources, and the disregarding of the consensus at the AFD. But as long as you're stopping now, then yes, that's all that matters, and we're all good here. Sergecross73msg me21:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
20:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Talk:Poppy (flower) by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
20:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Poppy to Talk:Poppy (flower) over redirect (There are other Poppy's too. This article should not be the first article to appear when "Poppy" is searched.)
20:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Poppy (flower) by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
20:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) moved page Poppy to Poppy (flower) over redirect (There are other Poppy's too. This article should not be the first article to appear when "Poppy" is searched.)
01:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Talk:Poppy (flower) by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
01:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Poppy to Talk:Poppy (flower) over redirect
01:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) moved page Poppy to Poppy (flower) over redirect
01:03, 6 February 2018 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Poppy (flower) by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
03:11, 31 December 2017 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:AJ Jackson to Talk:A/J Jackson (revert)
03:11, 31 December 2017 AlexanderHovanec (talk | contribs) moved page AJ Jackson to A/J Jackson (revert)
.......Nothing personal, but a friendly word of advice. The last time I saw an edit pattern like that the editor ended up being banned, not just temporarily blocked. This is nothing more than a friendly nod. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Word to the very wise, yes, agreed, I'm surprised you weren't blocked for those many good faith article name changes, so hopefully you'll stick around because you have too much to contribute to Wikipedia to be banned. Poppy will do fine as a non-primary or co-primary page, especially since the hatnote exists on Poppy although editors remove it every couple of months and it has to keep being replaced with notes to the page watchers. You did make the singer co-primary for a few days there, so there will always be a Paris, or Camelot, or something. Maybe time to give this one up though, and assure that at least the hatnote directs readers to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry. I'll refrain from now on. Is this an infraction of the Wikipedia guidelines? Is this a concept that is trying to be prevented? Because there's plenty of articles out there with "short sections". It just seemed practical because of the abundance of different information within each larger section. Which policy prohibits sub-sections? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I'm beyond aware of the punctuation facet. Then there's commas... I thought references went before commas. Am I right in thinking this? But yeah, if you see me place a citation before a period or other form of punctuation, then it must be a mistake, which I don't think I do too incredibly often. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I've scanned WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections and WP:TITLE but I'm not finding any information about limiting "short sections". Does the concept of four equal signs around a header not exist for a reason? If short sections weren't meant to exist, than wouldn't Wikipedia have limited headers to only possessing three or less equal signs? I don't want to give you a hard time but this also seems like more of a preference-based dilemma. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, yeah, maybe I should try that... I was never really good at using the talk page.
But nothing about "short sections"... if anything, they instruct one on HOW to create short sections... there was a section about other sections being stub-length or something. Is that what you're referring to? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still working out the kinks of the function, but I've relocated information to a new "two equal signed" section of its own, as I find it significant enough to have a header of its very own. The information was transferred to the bottom of the chronological listing of Twenty One Pilots' career and before information about band names and member listings. Also curious to know why you're so against placing links under between brackets. I.e., [ youtube.com Hello ]... -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, I have to say thank you for the improvements you have made on this article. But I was looking at the references and noticed that citations 4 and 5 have citation errors. The error said, "the named reference ____ was invoked but never defined." Meaning you didn't provide the full source and the two sources just have the ref name but no URL, title, or author provide so you can't even get to the source that provided the information. Bowling is life (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the appreciation! I'll take a look at the citation errors. I saw it too but I don't think it was actually me who added it. I'm still working out the kinks of Wikipedia so perhaps it was me. But yeah, must've been a mistake. Lemme take a look. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OCD eh? I feel the same way. There are still large portions without sources that aren't even mine, so I should consider researching sources to support other parts of the article as well. I began adding some sources and I'll attempt to uncover some more. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I hate it when articles have sections that are unsourced. The list of alternative rock artists, for example, is my worst nightmare on Wikipedia. But yeah, I'll try to help find more sources for the Twenty One Pilots page. Also, I checked a version of the TOP article from January 27th, and saw that the article only had 91 sources, it now has 161 sources! Bowling is life (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Joseph's brother is also the subject of the Regional at Best album cover – a younger Zack Joseph at a baseball camp being pictured in front." Do you have a source for this claim because I can't find anything? Bowling is life (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agh, I read it somewhere. Upon Google search it SHOULD be discover-able. If not though, then I'm fine with its deletion. Otherwise I think we have all new information properly sourced. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to the first section had a few errors, like redundancy, the deletion of information, or the deletion of sources that were previously there. I'm fine with re-adding them. It's no problem, just thought I'd mention it! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).
(This appeal was done via the template and not the email... the one above was subject to email) See the discussion below. The block was rash, and though less sources were added to a created article than craved, a "can you add more sources?" wasn't good enough. I've taken past warnings to heart and have bettered my editing style, but this isn't good enough in the eyes of the blocker -- one more mistake or slip up (or failure to add a set amount of sources) is apparently enough to send you overboard if you've received a "final warning". AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2018 (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 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).
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.
I mean, what, would you like me to add a source for every single song that appears in the article? If so, you should find the creators of the pages I listed above and tell them to do so as well. You're off your rocker mate. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything. Needs. Sourcing. How can you possibly plead ignorance on this with how many warnings you've had? And multiple editors made it very clear in the AFD that deleted your "List of unreleased Poppy songs" list that including that content on Wikipedia would require third party sourcing. Stop trying to weasel your way around rules and consensus. You can't just do whatever you want. Sergecross73msg me02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I won't do whatever I want, I'm familiar with the guidelines of Wikipedia. The "warnings" have gradually become less frequent and my edits since my account's creation have matured greatly. Mistakes still happen. However, whatever you've blocked me for seems to be a bit of a stretch on your end. "Unreleased songs" was decided to be deleted, so I complied. However I made an entirely new article called "List of songs recorded by Poppy" (with content that meets notability guidelines), and it hasn't been taken down -- other edits even being made and no one arguing. If you want sources, then by all means add them. I will too if you say the word. But are you going to tell the creator of List of songs recorded by Panic! at the Disco or List of songs recorded by The Beatles to add a source for every song added too? Other than that, the Beatles article ALSO contains unreleased songs AND covers. It is with this reasoning that I believe you are sorely mistaken. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, let me say that those "warnings" are history now. I've since gotten better at sourcing and am not the subject of those "multiple editors"' pleas anymore. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, and then there's "List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga" which DOES have a reference section. See, this is something I just found out. Like I said, mistakes still happen. 'Could've just said the word. The first thing I plan on doing when I'm unblocked is adding one reference per song, even if it takes awhile. But there's all of the similar articles that don't possess such. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can warn others too when it makes sense (the PATD article creator stopped editing in 2014, so some don't really make sense) but that doesn't absolve you of what you've done. It wouldn't get you unblocked, it'd just get others warned or blocked. Again, I gave you like 2 final warnings about not adding sources when you edit. Some discussions above show that others have concerns about your lack of sources too. You need find sources first, and then make edits. I'm glad you feel you're making improvements. Hopefully that means this won't happen again. Sergecross73msg me03:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, I hear you. Just don't be so rash. Again, I'll comply and add a ref-section and a source for every last song added to any "song lists" I make, have made, or will make. (And this applies to any article of any topic.) I'm 110% positive there are completely adequate sources out there just waiting to be added as we speak. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not "rash" at all. Take a look your own talk page. I gave you final warnings in December and January, and a number of other editors voiced concern as well, over and over again. You have your responses after many of them, but then you go right back to editing without sources again. You have not been responsive, so you were blocked. Sergecross73msg me03:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you're wrong again Serge. 😕
* "January 2018" was your "final warning".
* The "word to the wise" thing was about an unsuccessful article move, which I complied with.
* Immediately after that is a section about "hidden sections" using the "keyboard arrow" function.
* After that is a section ABOUT how I HAVE been adding citations to the article... and that I incorrectly formatted one resulting in an error.
* The section after that doesn't even make sense...
* Then we've got two sections about, yes, "not adding sources". However, we came to the conclusion that I just haven't been adding sources WITH the content I was adding, and that I was adding sources AFTER the content. In other words, I overall really was adding sources to the article.
This leads to right now. You being completely rash. You gave me a final warning in the midst of a bunch of other warnings... it's been a month and I've improved in my edits. And all of the other sections you're referencing aren't even about irresponsibly adding content without references. And now out of nowhere, kablooey. Just because you're unsatisfied with a SOURCED article that isn't sourced ENOUGH. This renders your previous argument about "your own talk page" faulty. All conversations that have since taken place do not have to do with why I've been blocked from editing. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So as I said, I have and will continue to source my articles. Since you've taken this method in stating your point (blocking), I'll immediately source every morsel of information in List of songs recorded by Poppy including covers and unreleased material (notability not being an issue anymore) when I'm unblocked. Maybe not immediately when the (cough cough irrational) block is removed because that'll take time and I've got other things to be doing, but as soon as I can. Soon. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just earlier in the week people were complaining about you making unsourced edits at 21 Pilots article. As were the edits that got you blocked. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a final warning in January and then blocking you for violating that warning in February. There is not an "expiration date" on final warnings, and even if there was, certainly "the very next month" would not be too far out. Sergecross73msg me03:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've just stated, that problem was nothing major and a resolution was quick. I already had sources at my disposal when "called out" by only one person... they asked me about sourcing a few seconds before I could apply said sources... and I ended up doing so and all was well. That doesn't count. Therefore I restate: the last "warning" I got regarding sources is technically your's in January. You've blocked me a month later in February under rash circumstances. For the very first time since the warning, I've failed to meet your specific amount of sources in mind. I've added some sure, but you would've liked more. There was no harm or malice done, you could've simply said, "Hey. More sources please." Or, "Hey, you've gotten a lot better at adding sources. Next time you create an article like this, make sure EACH bullet point is sourced."/"Could you source "every" "single" "bullet" please?" That's all. 🤷♂️ Rash. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You call it a "sourcing fixation". We call it verifiability, it's one of the pillars of the project. After all of the warnings here, 60 hours should be a wake-up call. If you don't see it that way, Wikipedia might not be for you. - SummerPhDv2.003:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "more the merrier" as they say. I never said anything about having it out for sources. Not sure even if you read most of the discussion above, but I've been trying to make a case that I have been adding plenty of sources. Our friend Serge here would just prefer more sources. And in turn decided blocking would be suitable. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I feel the "giant" discussion that took place a month ago was wake-up call enough. I've been doing pretty nicely. Again, not sure if you read the discussion above, but I pointed out that there haven't been any issues in the past month. Everything from then until now regard other misunderstandings different from missing sources. The Twenty One Pilots issue was quickly resolved and a mere misunderstanding as well. If anything, the final decision shouldn't have been left to one administrator who found frustration in a similar article being created to another that he found dissatisfaction in. Blocking should be debated by numerous individuals, so light can be shone on accusers' potential lapses in judgement. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Another thing to note: now that I'm blocked, the "List of songs recorded by Poppy" article is just sitting there – without the sufficient amount of sources that Serge fancies. So what... is blocking me for three days and leaving the article to sit there unsourced a better solution than allowing me fix the article and add over fifty potential sources to each song in the listing?
Heck, we don't even need to unblock me! If Serge cared enough, wouldn't he step forward and add some sources to the article? I mean, I think someone who cares enough would. I myself care, so I'd certainly add the necessary sources if I could. I just think doing something now would be better than allowing the article to sit there for three days with missing potential references. Or is this just about blocking me? And the Serge-requested changes just don't need to be made anymore? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, oh well. I'm just trying to make my case. I'm just thankful Serge didn't use his abilities to make the block indefinite like most of the other peoples' timestamps on the appeal list. 2-3 days is better than a few months. Even though I disagree with a block being necessary in the first place as it's practically going to change nothing. I'm still acknowledging the time limit given. Everything I do is sourced as of now except for the lists of songs which Serge has pointed out, so I guess that'll be the one thing I add even more sources to when the block is up. Otherwise, as I've said, this block'll have been pointless with little to no changes in my editing style aside from recording lists. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With your block expiring tomorrow, I wanted to be perfectly clear on a few things:
As an Admin: If you're caught adding unsourced content to Wikipedia, you'll be blocked again. It doesn't matter how many WP:OSE-violating arguments you have about other atrocities happening on Wikipedia - that doesn't absolve you of anything. It also does not matter if you feel it's "too rash" Wikipedia's blocking policy allows for immediate blocking of people violating policy they've already been blocked for. Provide sources for all content you add to Wikipedia.
As an AFD frequenting editor: There is a general consensus that artists with little to no song articles should not have a "list of songs recorded" article. If someone were to nominate your "List of Poppy songs" for deletion, there's like a 99% chance it would be deleted or redirected. I don't plan on doing it - I don't normally nominate articles for deletion - so I'm not threatening you about it, I'm just letting you know, since you've talked about plans of improving it - I thought you should be aware of its likelihood of being deleted before you decide to sink a ton of time and energy on it. Handle it as you see fit (as long as it doesn't involve adding unsourced info.) Sergecross73msg me23:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well like I said before, I plan on getting around to sourcing any recently created articles of mine when I can. So that shouldn't be a problem. The WP:OSE's mentioned weren't my way of saying "they can do it, so I should be able to as well" -- it was just an attempt to justify my actions, something people tend to do when under fire. I was explaining my thought process on the matter – people typically copy and paste templates from other pages into articles of their own as a means of getting things right like accuracy – so likewise I've created the List of songs recorded by Poppy article (as I've been saying:) on the same grounds as the other articles, but using their information and doing the same for the latter.
THEN again... your warning towards the Poppy article is ALSO likely as Poppy isn't nearly as refined or successful as any other named artist. The article I created regarding Twenty One Pilots – the group at least has a complete portfolio of awards. Poppy's kinda budding... so yeah, I'll be sure to keep deletion nominations in mind regarding these types of articles. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Poppi and artists like Panic and the Disco and Twenty One Pilots is that they have 10-15 song articles across 4-5 albums. Poppi has one song article from an album and an EP, as far as I can tell. Like I said, I've never witnessed an artist with zero or one song articles survive a deletion/merger discussion. List of song articles are generally for artists that have lots of individual song articles to link off to. Take that as you will. Sergecross73msg me01:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how I interpreted it. Alright, then I'll comply with any deletion requests towards Poppy, and from now on refrain from giving too much 'credit' to artists with few articles on the platform pertaining to them. You're right, Poppy has little articles having to do with her compared to larger artists with many articles just for their own individual songs. At first I didn't think it mattered, and pondered on attempting to create articles like this for many artists, but if notability is an issue, then yeah I'll keep this all in mind. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you mentioned the productive conversations at Poppy, you left a box with letters and numbers in it. I tried Googling those to find out what my browser should be showing me, but it led nowhere. I'm assuming something like a smiley face with rolling eyes. Close? InedibleHulk(talk)06:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail right on the head, hehe. Guess emojis don't translate well on Wikipedia. And even though it's not very professional, I still have a habit of doing so. Yeah, I was just laughing at how strange the fanbase can be. In a pleasant way. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hadn't necessarily responded to any of the reversions yet. But you did catch me before I had a chance to. And I can't say if I knew if I would or wouldn't have taken things further. At this point in time, I'm really having trouble caring about any of them, even if I disagree with some of the things Claystripe has done. So I guess I'll just leave it since there's technically nothing destructive about the edits. I know I use the term "preference" a lot, and I think a lot of Claystripes' edits have to deal with things that specifically bug him. So I really don't know. For now I'll leave it... he hasn't done anything drastic. (But I'm lifting a finger if he starts removing giant chunks of information!) -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't add personal inquiries to the article. Add a "citation needed" to the article or take it to the talk page."
I would have put in in the talk page, but could not find a link. I also felt that a citation needed reference would be for higher ups.
As to the preserved document, I'm guessing you mean the NT. You can't offer those alone in a wiki entry. I'll put aside the point that they are apologetic works and instead point out that there's no evidence the apostles did what you assert.
1.) 3 years after the ressurection, Peter is still in Jerusalem not out on the mission field.
2.) Jesus prohibited his followers from preaching to gentiles and said he only came for the list sheep of Israel. Matt 15:24
3.) Some 30 years after the crucifixion, at the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles STILL did not know what to do with Gentile converts
4.) After the council, Paul tells us Peter was the apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8)which is entirely consonant with the points above.
Peter, James and John (the Pillars) remained in Jerusalem despite the Great Commission
as they were all there 3 years later when Paul
stayed with Peter. Spiker 22 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should apologize because I mainly thought you were arguing against Christianity in general; instead, you just seem to disagree with a portion of text denoting the spawning of churches. There's a few things you could've done differently. First off, you can't just place "([but] what is this based on?) in the article, hehe. That's unencyclopedic. You should've presented your valuable points to the talk page, and could've made a solid debate. And still can as a matter of fact. Whoever inserted the specific text you disagree with, they surely must've provided a source/citation, or perhaps a reference in the article that supports the claim. You could've reworded the text you disagree with, or replaced the information with your four valid points, by being WP:BOLD. What you have done correctly is provided ACTUAL textual sources to support your beliefs, something Wikipedia stresses. If anything, I say add what you want to the article (without being blatantly first-person-ish... the readers shouldn't be seeing notes from the authors throughout the article haha... a trick is placing a < followed by a --. Insert your thoughts after this and end it with another ">"). Understand what I'm saying? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an avid reader of biblical text and am currently studying religion; however, even I am not too incredibly familiar with what you are getting at. By referencing "(Galatians 2:8)", no one can argue with you. So continue editing the article but go about it in the correct way! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ever add unreliably sourced and personal information to an article as you did here. The White Pages is never an acceptable source for a BLP let alone much else. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯17:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This offense happened months ago, I don't know why you're only telling me this now. Besides, information being "personal" isn't even a problem. It's an encyclopedia's job to list information as it is, not to comply with the subject of the article's wishes. If you have a problem with White Pages, or if Wikipedia's against it being used as a source, then fine, understood, it won't be used as a source again. But there are other sources that support the family information you've removed, so just get your priorities straight. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you're wrong. I really did add the information he had a problem with months ago, if you'll look here, the information was already on the page, and was pretty much uncontested until now. Here, you'll see a user agreeing the information doesn't need to be removed. And the link from 10 days ago you pointed out? Someone attempted to remove the information for being "personal" and "out of date" -- both invalid reasons. I'll understand the edit being reverted on the grounds that White Pages is an unacceptable source, but if you looked at the edit summaries, you'll see that nothing wrong has occurred. Ergo I restate, "unreliably sourced" information is the first time I'm hearing of this SINCE October when I ADDED the info... therefore he really did just notice it now as the information has been around for months. It's not my problem if he only just noticed the information. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'll say it again. Chrissymad. This offense occurred MONTHS ago. I used White Pages as a source way back in October and I've since stopped. You could've simply reverted the info and provided White Pages as not being valid in your edit summary. What you linked, and what has occurred on the 17th, isn't about sources, it's about someone calling the information "personal". And you have too. Personal information regarding families of Wikipedia-article-ed criminals is one thing, but family info about music videos is fair game (i.e. Tyler Joseph or Josh Dun, or even Justin Bieber). -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, they were obviously were talking about the time you used it in February (which was correct of them to say, and wrong of you to do at any point.) Searching for a name in a database like that is neither a reliable source, nor does it even successfully verify what you were trying to say. The fact that you made the same mistake last October and they didnt notice it then doesn't absolve you of anything. It's absolutely baffling that you're trying to turn the blame on anyone else here. The warning is valid. Don't use sourcing like this, especially on BLPs. Sergecross73msg me00:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "bad sourcing" was a mistake on my behalf. 'Didn't know the sources were conceived as "horrible". Every time someone deleted the information, it was for a reason that had nothing to do with sourcing. Like the information being too "irrelevant" or "personal". And thinking the sources were fine as no one had complained about it, I believed the information was thus still eligible. In other words, I was never warned about White Pages being a horrible source from October to February until now. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this February 26, 2018 edit you added content about a person's relationship ending without adding a source that supported it. Additionally, multiple editors (here and here) criticized the low quality of sources you're using on BLPs as well.
I'm sure you've got a million reasons why none of this is blockable offense, but the core issue is, you sourcing issues, especially for BLPs, have been something editors have been complaining about for months and years and your most recent edit on Wikipedia as of writing this, this, is you adding unsourced content into a BLP, so its apparent that there's still a problem here.
This is just... borderline abuse now... you're beyond mistaken for reasons that are so obvious that it concerns me. You've listed four reasons why I need to be blocked for a week... two of which are the exact same reason by the way. The Stormi Bree dilemma: I didn't even ADD any of that information... someone deleted info that someone ELSE added and SOURCED... I reverted the deletion telling them it WAS sourced... then they RE-ADDED the info. You linked both of these as reasons I needed to be blocked, even though I pretty much had nothing to do with it... I didn't add ANY info, I was just re-adding someone ELSE's info that was deleted for the reason that it needed to be sourced, which it was.
The third reason you've blocked me is for the "BLP" warning regarding information I added MONTHS ago!!! MONTHS before you even BLOCKED me... I don't know WHY they're only deciding to warn me about it now, but you'd like to hold THIS against me?
Last but not least, I was never warned once in my lifetime about "copyright" violations. Not once! How was I supposed to know? As far as I know, quoting was never breaching copyright. But now that I know that I've added too MUCH quotes, I'll refrain. This is only a first time offense.
These aren't excuses, these are all just dilemmas in which you've confused as either MY offense or a RECENT offense. I mean, I don't like to throw around the word "ignorant", but you're not far from the term. How can you be so sorely mistaken? Someone with your ranks on Wikipedia should at LEAST be able to tell when the offense was MINE, or when a block is ACCEPTABLE. I'm no threat to Wikipedia nor have I done any recent harm. The BLP issue is FAR in the past but someone only decided to warn me about it NOW; and you see this as an excuse to re-block me. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is personal for some reason. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you were blocked for this edit, in which you added content to a BLP that was not covered in the source. The examples of past warnings and blocks are just background information should you ask someone to review the block. The COPYVIO issue wasn't what you were blocked for, just another concerning edit I found while combing through your recent edits. Sergecross73msg me21:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, a copyvio warning should've been in a section of its own, as it has nothing to do with this issue. If you're solely concerned with the issue regarding Stormi Bree, I already told you I have nothing to do with that. None of that information is anything I personally typed and added to the article -- it was someone else's doing. When their edits were reverted, I re-added the info because I saw a source within the information. If you're unhappy with the source they added, then sorry, I didn't know, but I saw a source, and when the information was removed for being sourceless, I was a bit bewildered because I for one did see a source. I complied when I was reverted for my output and didn't fight with whatever was going on. I was quickly trying to lend a hand. Ergo you're sorely mistaken, once again. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to separate your warnings into separate sections then. But I am not mistaken. Regardless of who originally wrote it, you made this edit. You are the one who re-introduced it into the article. The IP has been warned to not do it again. But you've already been warned. Thus, the block. Sergecross73msg me22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, I guess "re-introduced" is the term I've been looking for. I guess next time I won't "re-introduce" any information to an article if it has no right in being there. But just keep in mind that "Vogue" was a source within the information I re-added. If you don't think Vogue's a valid source, then fine, I won't use it again. But the information was sourced... -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Serge has either abused his power or is incapable of correctly identifying a situation in which a user is a threat to Wikipedia, has done harm, or has done something wrong. I've been blocked for a week on completely outrageous claims. For example, a BLP issue that occurred MONTHS ago was only recently addressed on my talk page. Serge used this as an opportunity to hold it against me as a modern offense... something that happened after my last warning (despite it occurring BEFORE my last warning...); this is unfair and down right abusive. Next, for the very first time I'm being warned about "copyright" (in terms of quoting an author); Serge thinks the solution is an immediate block. Last but not least, Serge has blocked me for adding unsourced information to an article... when in reality this never even happened. Someone ELSE added this information to an article, WITH a source in the midst of this chunk of info. Someone else removed the information, claiming it wasn't sourced (despite a source within the information). I re-added the info by reverting the deleter in saying that it was sourced. The person I reverted then reverted ME... at this point I didn't even care anymore and complied. Nonetheless, Serge somehow correlates this with my last warning and is using this as another illogical and outrageous reason for block. I don't wish to be an administrator and don't mind my inferior position, but being rendered helpless like this is somewhat unfair. There's gotta be a way to prevent misdemeanors like this from happening. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You appear to have some very ingrained misconceptions as to how WP:BLP works. The edit you were blocked for here added personal information that was not supported by the accompanying source. Did you check before restoring the BLP violation? It's not like you haven't had serious issues interpreting BLP policy previously and I think it would be very beneficial for you to take this week to thoroughly review Wikipedia's brightline policy regarding living persons. A word of advice, blaming admins for enforcing the policy you have violated is pretty much a non-starter in any appeal. See WP:GAB. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:19, 27 February 2018 (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.
Drats, looks like I wasn't able to leave an impression. Regardless, I was actually blaming an admin for enforcing a policy I didn't violate -- intentionally or directly at least. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the umph-teenth time, the content was sourced. I reverted an edit reverter because he seemed mistaken. If you didn't like the type of source that was within the information, then that isn't my problem. I was never warned about which sources should be used -- only sources in general. I saw a source within the info, therefore it seemed outrageous to remove information that had been sourced. I wasn't arguing with anything that was occurring in the article, it was just a blind edit that I wasn't going to return to no matter what happened. I've explained your misconception of the edit you keep linking so you can stop listing it. I've already told you you're incorrect. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Vogue" was it? If you don't think this is worthy of being a source, then fine. But I didn't know you had something against such sources at the time... all I knew was that you were fixated on sources therefore the information that CONTAINED a source seemed acceptable at the time. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your block is not about source reliability. Its about the fact that the source given does not verify about half the content added. There's a statement about how a breakup is assumed because of pictures on social media or whatever. That part is entirely unsourced. The Vogue source says nothing about that. And you added it in that edit. You can rationalize all you want, but you're the one who carelessly re-added unsourced content into an article. Sergecross73msg me22:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, wait a minute, you mean you're focusing on the second half of the paragraph? Yeah, I mean I guess there really isn't a source after that sentence. Well maybe it was careless then... after all I didn't even read the information I was re-adding to the article, I only saw a source within the information which defied the reason the reversion was made. But if that's the case, then why didn't the reverter only remove the second sentence. Why'd he remove the sourced information? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But now that we've reached a consensus, and that you know I'm no threat, and that you've been given all this info, and still see a reason to have me blocked for a week's time, seems rash and unnecessary. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As if there even are any issues... everything that has occurred is just a matter of "don't do this anymore", and me going "okay I won't". Ever since pre-January, if someone tells me I'm disobeying a policy on Wikipedia, I comply and change my ways. If something like your reason for blocking me occurs... something called unintentional or perhaps a mistake... then it's not a reason for banning. That's the only "misdemeanor" since the last block that involves lack of sources, and I already explained the mistake here. I misjudged the re-addition of information because ONE measly sentence (that I didn't even add in the first place) lacked a source. When my edit was reverted and my mistake was called out, I complied and didn't argue. No issues. You're. Rash. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For Pete sake, you don't even give any credit where it's due... don't you see how serious I was about sources in the section above this regarding the Apostles? Check my edit history... most things I've added possess sources, and the ones that don't involve the addition of sources are simply grammar fixes or format changes. I pose no threat to Wikipedia, and I haven't since, like, 2016 when I was completely unfamiliar with how things were run. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tip, since you still haven't figured it out: the UTRS system is really more for when you can't do a normal unblock request (like if an admin took away your ability to edit your talk page during a block.) It's not really meant as something you just randomly when your unblock request is rejected or not answered. That (one of many reasons) why they're not working for you. Sergecross73msg me00:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, Ponyo Regarding this subject, the user repeatedly added contested content and sources (the Whitepages) to a BLP despite multiple edits and editors removing it and it certainly bordered on edit-warring and I got the distinct impression there were significant ownership issues with their edits. I'd strongly suggest pursuing a potential topic ban on BLPs given their past and apparently repeated indiscretions and inability to understand basic policy. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯02:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently undergoing an illegitimate ban. It is for this reason that I have to use my alternate accounts to make edits. But with this account, I'll still make the following changes (for articles I regard myself as being "notably involved with") when I return:
My account:
List of spelling-based errors within articles on brother's Wikipedia account (user page); he's using the computer as of now but when I get the chance I'll hop on and make those changes (3/3 you can do it)
No. You are not allowed to edit under other accounts while being blocked. Please see Wikipedia's policy on Block Evasion. You have two options. Unblock requests, or not editing until your block expires. Sergecross73msg me15:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... well given that I hadn't done any harm to Wikipedia in the first place, I don't even see why this account should be blocked. You haven't really given me any other choice with your unresponsiveness. You don't seem to want to rationalize; you're strictly set on the technical aspect, "he did this so he's blocked without a second thought". I'm aware of the guidelines about sockpuppetry, and the circumstances regarding block evasions, but as I said, what other choice do I have? Waiting a week when there's errors to be fixed? I don't think so. Two of my older brothers also have Wikipedia accounts, and they don't believe I've done any wrong either, so if I need to adjust something, I'm just going to have to use their accounts for now. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry you're blocked. I made the Apostle page edit you list above. Maybe just wait the block out, and one of the written "rules" of Wikipedia is to be nice to your fellow editors. Don't be on the defensive so much, and the admin or admins who are blocking you may let up a bit. You're a young editor here, and a determined editor who is learning every day, and I hope you come back soon, you are an asset to Wikipedia. And no, sockpuppets, even with good intention, are something the admins will object to, not because of you in particular but because no sockpuppets are allowed to run around, especially during a block. Enjoy the break though, have fun! Randy Kryn (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Randy, I'm starting to think you're watching my talk page, hehe. Appreciate the advice. You've been very vocal in matters like this. And you're absolutely right. I'm very aware that defensive blockees have minimal chances of getting their blocks repealed, as opposed to level-headed ones that don't give admins so much lip. So, you're not wrong in the slightest. But you need not worry about how things pan out here. Whatever happens I'm sure it's for the best. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but also, thanks a lot for fixing the Apostles conundrum. I've actually been seeing your name in the edit history, which is pretty coincidental. Also, I hear your concerns about sockpuppetry, even with "good intention". But I still feel as if this ban is unnecessary. Which makes it sort of hard to just sit and "wait". Sure, waiting won't be the end of the world, but Serge has banned me once before on principles I also disagree with. So it's a lot to swallow. But thanks for the tips Randell. 👌 Appreciate it. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been far more responsive than most blocking admin - I've responded 5-8 times to just about every query. I just don't agree with your unblock argument. (Nor did a third party admin in the unblock request.) Your very argument is contradictory - you cannot concurrently believe both ideas that 1) You understand why you were blocked and 2) the block was unjust. It can't be both. If you understood, then you wouldn't argue it was unjust.
When you are blocked, its not your "username" that is blocked, it's that "you as a person" are blocked. If you block evade, the other accounts will be blocked and this account's blocked with be lengthened. Sergecross73msg me21:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when you're blocked, it's your IP and the accounts connected to it that are banned. The person you've blocked is not a threat to Wikipedia -- meaning it was unjust and unnecessary for all the reasons I explained in the past. As a matter of fact, the only benefit anyone has listed from this block is that "you, Alex, will have time to 'think'"... which is pretty horrible. Do what you will with this account, but due to the consistent bans, I've began moving data over to other accounts to make my editing a bit smoother for myself. The edits I've made on other articles are uncontested and actually do Wikipedia articles justice (i.e. typo changes, reformats, and reverting edits that do not possess sourcesOR plain out sourcing them myself) therefore I don't see how they (the other accounts) have any chance of being blocked -- especially since the IPs are not connected.
And yeah, you've definitely been responsive, more so than other admins as far as I can see, but you just don't seem to want to leave the technical side of things. The block was indeed unjust, for reasons I've explained multiple times; and yeah, I understand your incorrect psychology on the matter. I correlate both of your points, 1. and 2., with you being strictly "technical". I understand what I've technically done wrong, and the guidelines I've breached by re-adding a measly sentence to an article that didn't have a source after the punctuation... but if you were more rational of a user, perhaps you'd see that it was unintentional harm, and practically none at best. And you'd give me a bit more credit where its due in that 99% of my edits are sourced after the last block. In saying this, I feel you'd say, "No, that's not good enough. 100% sourced or blocked." -- but if you were more rational, perhaps you'd perceive mistakes as being a common part of the experience. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"But Alex, you've made a hundred thousand mistakes. And you've been warned time after time." -- Right. Throughout 2015 to 2016... but lately I've been doing just fine. All reasons in 2017 that attempt to justify any sort of block for my account are stretches and don't make any attempt to understand the situation, but instead place their justifications in Wikipedia's no-exception guidelines. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to appeal to other Admin through unblock requests then, if you're so confident that you're right and I'm wrong. They should be able to recognize these sorts of blatant "injustices" you claim to have happened here. But again, using other accounts is not an acceptable option. Getting caught with them will just lead to more blocks. The other accounts will get indefinitely blocked on the spot, and your account will get extended as well. Eventually your main account will be indefinitely blocked as well. Sergecross73msg me22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep adding and removing items from your editing "to do" list. Are you editing using other accounts? Sergecross73msg me
Hi. I mentioned above that I did the edit for AlexanderHovanec's found-and-noted vandalism at "Apostle", so that's probably why it was removed from the "to do" list. AH is itching to get back, and has his assignments in a to-do list. How often do you see that from the banned? A good editor. I do have this talk page on my watchlist, left over from our discussion awhile back and I never removed it. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I remove something from the list, it just means that the changes have since been made, most likely by another editor and I don't have to worry about it anymore. I've only been using my other accounts to fix spelling and grammar errors, as well as take part in discussions on talk pages of musical artists. The purpose of the list is just so I know what to focus on (with this account) when I get back. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using other accounts while blocked is WP:Block evasion. Furthermore, per WP:SOCK#LEGIT alternative accounts are only allowed for specific purposes, and "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account". You have not identified your alternative accounts. Pinging blocking admin user:Sergecross73 . Meters (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I warned you that block evasion was against the rules, and yet you've done it anyways, and used your talk page to document it, I've extended your block, and revoked talk page access. Sergecross73msg me13:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of questions from an uninvolved but "interested in a good editor keeping up the good energy as a potentially very valuable long-term editor" talk-page "stalker" sometimes wikipublic-defender. Can he have the time-served off of the two weeks? It may have been an misunderstanding of using alternate accounts (and yes, AH, please never use those again, when blocked you stay blocked, "dems the rules"). And will the block affect the other users at the same computer? I would personally hope that the block can be shortened a bit, but kept long enough to teach the lesson. I've had two blocks, one I earned and the longer second block of three days because I didn't know the rules, and they were not explained to me before the block. Sometimes people need explanations in a couple of different ways before they "get it", each case is a bit different. Anyway, this longer block does seem justified if AH kept using socks, but maybe with time served? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can this possibly be misconstrued as a misunderstanding? I directly told him policy does not allow for using other accounts during a block, and he has very clearly acknowledged my statements, and continued to repeatedly make comments about doing it anyways. This has been the most blatant case of block evasion I've ever seen. Sergecross73msg me14:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but one of my teachers taught us that there are two kinds of learners, one who learn quickly but the information is not as deeply imbedded, and the other who has to learn slowly but when absorbed it stays at a deeper level. The very open admission of use of other accounts by AH seems quaint and indicates a still not understood concept, and the longer ban should put some energy behind the learning-curve. My concern is that long breaks like this are discouraging for new editors, and Wikipedia should encourage editors instead of discourage. A slap on the wrist (or better yet a slap on the head per Gibbs on NCIS) is certainly needed, but trimming a few days from the long ban might be productive for the project. I'll stop public-defending here now (only the second time I've used that term, the first was when I was accused of wiki-lawyering). And from my point-of-view you have been a sensitive administrator so far in your dealings with this editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And to remind AH again, do not edit the encyclopedia with any accounts or IPs if you are banned, even tiny edits, nothing. The reason for the longer ban is for you to learn that. Not one edit from any account. You are too good a user to lose, the ban was a good faith ban and richly deserved. If your don't learn from it that you can't even make minor edits, even if you see something needed to be fixed, just make an off-line note of it. Wikipedia is gone for you for a short period of time, if you edit anywhere it can be gone for you for good. See you when you return. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AH, hello, and I'm sorry that this has gone to such an extreme, probably on all sides, that I have to cough up a wall of text. You seem to have learned very well about sources, had been careful of adding them, and tried to explain your side to the admins. You were learning quickly and well. But your main infraction was editing with IP's after being blocked. Even if the block wasn't warranted, which is arguable (when it should be clear), or if you got the appeals location wrong (I don't know what the exact appeal process is either), you blew yourself up by using socks while blocked. You should only use one account, this one, and if this one is blocked then you sit it out. I and others told you that, and you did not seem to understand the seriousness of it. WTF? You probably did this out of the sense of unfairness brought about by the continued direct focus on every move you made, in which you improved to a degree I've seldom seen on Wikipedia. You did well, and had and have the potential to be an extremely good editor here. I guess even if you initially thought an admin had wrongly blocked you (and that case, from reading all of the above, seems strong), you blew it all up by using socks. I take that as you enjoying and loving Wikipedia so much that you couldn't keep away, and I tried to talk you down from doing that.
I don't know a way forward unless there is some sincere apology for using socks, and even then you will have to sit out a long ban. This, to me, is tragic, as losing good editors like yourself hurts the project. Maybe you can email some of the admins and ask for a route back. Creating a new account under another name won't work, as an editor's edit pattern and particular use of language can be discerned and then proven, just as your most recent IP was caught. You even edited my talk page with it, I "protected" you by deleting it and I then immediately came to this talk page to ask you to stop, and you kept using it! Dude! Someone else figured it out, took it to Serge, and you were kicked to the curb. The key is to take this as a learning curve (and you've done very well at taking and learning to master the sources learning curve), see that it was wrong, talk it out on emails if you can't edit this talk page, apology and give a pinkie-double-dare-cross-your-heart promise to never ever use a sock again (I want to say "idiot" but won't insult you that much, except here in parenthesis).
Please, consider at least giving it another shot. You don't seem like a person who gets discouraged enough to go away, which is cool, so please take what routes are left. If you do get back I would hope the admins would back off a little on blacklisting final-chance warnings (which are, in my opinion, if taken on a case by case basis, run counter to the good of the project and create unnecessary intimidating and adversarial relationships), and you would be polite and give them credit for being long-time and productive Wikipedians. But the use of socks is a deal breaker, that's all on you. Socks during a ban will get you indefbanned, as they should. As an example, one proficient editor had to do off-project work, but was addicted to editing, so he (or she) tried to get banned and no admin would do it. So they started using socks and ran all over the place with them, not trying to hide them but attempting to purposely get banned. It was really fun to watch. And that got them banned (he or she later came back after the off-site work was accomplished). Socks-when-banned are probably the ultimate sin of Wikipedia. I don't know how else to explain that to you unless I saw you in person and, like Gibbs on NCIS, slapped the back of your head. Use email, it's your friend, and let's see if you can play the game by its most basic rules. I hope you come back, with this account, and that you can again enhance Wikipedia's pages so that they can be further utilized and enjoyed by the reading public. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this clear to you, as you seem in doubt. No matter how many times you use a sock to reinsert your edits or your self-photography, it will be reverted, and the sock blocked. No one is fooled by the fake disruptive edit summaries you are using. Every time you evade your block, the clock until you could attempt a WP:STANDARDOFFER resets. If you ever want a second chance, you are going to have to stop, avoid Wikipedia for six months, then make an unblock request from this account asking for the standard offer. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret:How do you feel about "Template:2nd chance" 's. What if I give a thorough evaluation of Wikipedia's guidelines, and present/demonstrate their use or suggest how they may be used in future potential edits. What if I list the traits that make a source valid? What if I do as the "template" says and paste some kind of article here and make improvements that would "knock your socks off"?
Administrators apparently have it out for "sock puppets", but aren't most sock puppets vandals? Not one of my 4,000 edits (back in my account's prime) was vandalism. They were all intellectual edits that anyone could see value in, even if removed for whatever reason. What I'm getting at: I was originally banned for "lack of sources". What if I prove to you that I have a sufficient grip on Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and Wikipedia:Article development and then show you an application of citations and reliable sources? (In the hypothetical scenario in which I wasn't blocked from Wikipedia, I'd then take this information of which I present to you and apply it to my edits always and forever. To prevent a block from occurring again, a source would be used in every edit aside from grammatical ones.)
After all, I don't think I ever tried this out during a ban, and therefore I believe I'm entitled to one. It was amongst the Standing Offer, and being that I've always thought of Wikipedia as a hobby and a means of self-improvement, I feel as if the Standing Offer is a bit too long of a wait. Like I said, Standing Offers were put in place for socks, most of which are probably vandals who do more harm than justice. What if I embark on a "2nd chance" attempt? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course people are "out to get" sock puppets. They're not allowed. Please, just stop. There is not a single Admin in existence who is going to take up a proposal like this. You've been caught block evading 10+ times in the time since your original indef block, and haven't stopped violating that rule since your initial block, being caught evading as recently as today. No admin is going to trust you to strike that sort of deal. See WP:STANDARDOFFER. It's your only option, this many mistakes in. Sergecross73msg me16:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're positive there's not a single Admin? After all, not even my socks have made unconstructive edits. Not only that, but I technically haven't been given a second chance. I've never had a block revoked before, nor have I actually had a chance to prove good intentions (the only chance being given the option to wait six months) via undergoing the "2nd chance template" on the talk page. And the "2nd chance" was included on the standing offer article. If you're positive it's undoable, then so be it. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only option on the table is WP:STANDARDOFFER. 2nd chance really isn't for cases like this, as its intended more for editors hit early with an indef block for outright vandalism or disruption. You've essentially already had multiple "second chances" through your shorter prior blocks. You also need to understand that while you believe it's helpful, adding photos of yourself and friends to various articles isn't really improving anything or illustrating those topics. We're not your vanity project, and most of them were added by socks after your block. Let me make this clear once more, since you're still arguing you haven't really done anything wrong: Once you have been blocked, regardless of the reason, any block evasion or socking is disruptive to the project. Deceptive unblock requests, lying about who you are, fake edit notes, and the like, are wasting the time of other volunteers. I will personally agree to review your unblock request in six months as part of the standard offer, but that's off the table if I catch or hear of a single further block evasion. If Wikipedia is a means of self-improvement, then spend six months pondering what led you to this point and come back refreshed and ready to tackle new things. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deception was used in order to continue editing – not only that but two of the accounts you've put in the "sock drawer" aren't even mine; and I wouldn't call this a "vanity" project, I was only attempting to justify that I take Wikipedia seriously and don't intend for harm.
As for photographs, I believe everyone has a right to contribute them – and they really don't have anything to do with this, save for the fact that a few socks reverted your previous revisions. As a matter of fact, there's little difference to an article with or without images I contribute, therefore there's no use in removing them. At this point, they've been removed, so I guess I there's no use in re-adding them either. But you're making it out to be like it's a crime to add images to Wikipedia, or that I'm adding them to articles for pure kicks, for the sake of me and "my friends", when all a relevant image can to for an article is benefit it in a slight way, which is only what I was attempting to do.
Anywho, yes I'll try the standard offer, but I'm still seeking other methods. I want to say you're wasting your own time – but I also have to "ponder what led to this point". Once the six months are up, I'll also need to write a detailed memoir of how I plan to improve myself – what I was intending to do for the "2nd offer' anyways. So I'll hold you to your offer to review it when the time comes. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty kind that you were given the SO however you seem to completely miss what a block is - you are blocked from editing the English Wikipedia, period. You, not just your account or an IP. You as a person, which means no matter how right you think you are or may actually be, you don't get to edit. Adding the photographs yourself under another name or asking someone else to do so constitutes both sock puppetry and meat puppetry and is in direct violation of your block.CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% positive there's no other path beyond STANDARDOFFER. Any admin who reviews your situation (Repeated blocks for unsourced/BLP violations, refusing to acknowledge wrongdoing, threatening to block evade, proceeding to block evade many times, accumulating a ton of rejected unblock requests, adding disruptive images of yourself into articles, and feeling all this somehow entitles to a second chance despite being on like your 20th chance now) is going to reject any proposals or defenses of yours. You can try to argue all you want, but you've dug yourself way too deep of a hole, and you're not in a place to negotiate in the first place. That's the last I'll say on this - I know you've always got reasons why you're right and everyone else is wrong, but its simply not valid in the eyes of anyone who understands Wikipedia blocking/unblocking policy. Sergecross73msg me17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IPs 107.242.117.5 and 107.242.117.6 blocked on behavioral evidence, either SOCK or further proxy editing. Clock for standard offer resets, 6 more months. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, woah, woah, what's this about!? I haven't gotten on Wikipedia at ALL. Why are you resetting by standard offer? I haven't been socking whatsoever! You're the one who said you'd personally review my plea if I went without socking!!! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your edit history... just because someone edits an article I've edited before doesn't mean it's me! I haven't touched Wikipedia! And none of my "socks" have either! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I swear I wasn't socking, I don't know what else I can do in this circumstance though. Looking at the little "sock drawer" thing, there's people being blocked who aren't even me. And I don't like that everytime someone else gets blocked, that my standard offer gets reset. I've finally decided to undergo the six month avoidance. I don't know why I'm being blamed for others editing a Wikipedia page. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ferret, you're re-adding typos to Wikipedia articles!!! But it's not really my position to be concerned over something like that. I know people don't like to believe it when I call an admin out for making mistakes, but you're resetting my six month standard offer over something I'm not even associated with in the first place. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: You scorned me for asking about this on the literal Wikipedia discord, but you won't level with me here! You also said something about behavior? How does that link me to someone else who's edited an article that I did before? Yes, in the past I used an actual sock to fix a typo on a Wikipedia page, but every time someone else is going to fix the same typo that I've tried to fix in the past, I am going to be blamed and have my standard offer reset? How does that even happen? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever you blocked was editing articles I've never even associated with before. Owen, framing, Danielle Jonas, etc. And I've already brought this up, but I agreed to stop jeopardizing my standard offer the last time you were here. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no association with Danielle Jonas, but I actually did edit Armen Ra at one point, then I used a sock to fix typos within the article too (and I know, I know, no matter how good the motive, it's still a sin) -- but not recently Same goes for Borns... plus it's autoconfirmed now, so it's not like I could edit it if I wanted to. But that's why ferret thinks I'm socking? Because someone else tried fixing a typo I tried to fix? I mean, there's so much bad punctuation within the article, does that mean every time someone is going to try and fix it, I'll be accused of socking? :( I really am trying to go six months without touching the site, so I don't wanna screw that up ATM. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AH, and it seems that you've made your case on this point clear enough and well enough that you can leave it be and "wait" for the original six months to end to bring it up again if it is still a sticking point. I hope all is well with you, and I'm glad that you've taken the "no socking" policy to heart. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey Randy. Thanks a lot for the advice, I will take it to heart and plan to go the six months. The only problem is, I have been undergoing the standard offer already, but ferret just "reset the clock" for reasons unknown. I worry that if I wish to engage in the standard offer, ferret will continue mistaking others' edits as mine and resetting it all over again. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Maybe just do your time from the original six months and then see how the lay of the land is. Are you in solitary, or amongst the other naredewells and sock-masters in the yard? Randy Kryn (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point... perhaps if I try waiting out the six months (while unfortunately starting over), I can see if the neerdowells cause anymore trouble. And just see how things play out. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your comments a few above: its not one individual thing, but rather the coincidence of three or so things that all happened to come from the same IP address. It's the fact that the same IP address made 3 edits very similar to you - editing 2 of the same pages you've edited on the past, and adding a unsourced middle name to a BLP. That's not exactly common behavior for an unrelated random newbie to jump straight into. And it seems like you're always trying to ask us to believe in these far fetched coincidences like this. (Like someone else was adding pics of you and your friends across Wikipedia articles that didn't make any sense for the article subjects?) But as Randy says, if you do happen to make it 6 months from the original date, you may be able to convince people of STANDARDOFFER regardless. Sergecross73msg me21:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well the photo conundrum is irrelevant here... I've already clarified, I just wanted to contribute photographs of my own, and images I chose to add to articles just happened to possess people. And what about the image I had added to the Shih-poo article, per se? It was removed for being "low quality" when it was actually removed for belonging to a "sock", even though it was added to the article long before having ever been banned in the first place. As a matter of fact, all of my images were removed -- most of which were added to articles before being blocked -- and they're all entirely relevant to their own articles. But this has nothing to do with the problem at hand. You're just trying to correlate it with coincidences.
I don't know what "coincidences" you're talking about in terms of why ferret reset my standard offer, but obviously other people are going to make the same edits I tried making in the past. There are blatant errors in articles. Typically people will try and remove the errors to make Wikipedia an adequate encyclopedia. I tried fixing these once, but you and ferret seem to prefer article errors in articles, having re-added them just because a sock was trying to do an article justice... and now that other people are going to try and fix them, they're going to automatically be linked to me?
You also mention IP addresses but these IP's having nothing to do with me... check the user contributions... some of the articles listed have nothing to do with my past edits whatsoever... I wouldn't know how else to convince you of the error here. And can you stop referencing Danielle Jonas? I assume that's what BLP-related edit you're talking about? I have no association without whoever that is. I think ferret is fixated on a discography article, and a theremin-related article, which I've indeed have assoications with, but not recently. I see someone tried adjusting the errors in the articles, but it wasn't me.
Just when ferret began cutting me some slack, he's gone and revoked everything. Why would I have wanted to jeopardize the situation even further? And now he's not even willing to discuss the details with me. He was vague in his original standard-offer revocation, he's ignoring the pings, he's condemned me for using the Wikipedia discord for questioning him, and I've had to figure out what all this means on my own. What kind of system is this?
I mean, check out that hanging parenthesis in the Armen Ra article. A long time I go I tried removing it. Ferret has noticed someone else trying to get rid of it but now he's obsessed with keeping it there because he's uber-engrossed with keeping a user who poses no threat to Wikipedia out of Wikipedia's midst.
Sure, many admins would like to try and deem me as a threat based on things I've done after having been blocked in the first place, but the things I did before my first blocked weren't harmful and the very first blocks were completely unjustified. The "deception" you speak of using "socks" is all just an attempt to continue contributing in a normal manner. Maybe a sock edit lacked sourcing or consisted of errors, but I normally wouldn't do that... I'd just have to disguise myself as an inexperienced editor to deflect suspicion.
But what I've just said isn't even recent (they're just vents I'm trying to back up my points with)... I've literally separated myself from the site completely in the present, and I was simply trying to sort it out with ferret. But if he's not going to response, then as I've said, I'll continue to standard offer and see what else pans out... -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my user page: "I will not discuss or debate unblock requests on Discord." I am not going to elaborate on how I review and decide on behavioral evidence. Sergecross has given most of the pertinent details. You spend too much time trying to justify and twist things for me to engage in debating with you: You are an unreliable participant in discussions about your block evasion. Even now you're spending your time justifying your block evasion on the basis that your original blocks were unjustified. It's not worth my time. So my suggestion is to follow Randy's advice, and we'll see what we see when you post your unblock request. I highly suggest when you get to that point you stop trying to claim innocence and that this was all unjustified, as your statements still show that you don't understand why unsourced BLP edits, block evasion, and socking is a problem and disruptive to Wikipedia's policies. -- ferret (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm not going to "try and claim innocence" upon my request... what do you think I've been reading about for the past weeks? They're supposed to be perfect, so I'm not going to say things I'm not supposed to upon making the request. It has to display an understanding of the policies of Wikipedia, which I have. But you say I don't have an understanding of the policies, despite a policy being listed in the past in accordance to an edit of mine and me being able to counter it or explain why I've either abided by the policy or why it doesn't apply.
I was originally blocked on BLP grounds; however, I had a perfectly fine understanding of the policies at the time. In the beginning, I was simply trying to explain why my block was unjustified on the grounds that I'd slipped up and made a mistake -- which I'm sure Wikipedeans can do, as a matter of fact Serge even talks about the possiliblity of mistakes in his bio. Before my very first block I would've complied with any of my edits being reverted and learned from them, and I tried telling Serge that, but he insisted on a block regardless. Because why not? The less users that go against his preferences the better...
Aside from "BLP" related policies, which you think I don't understand, you also seem to think I know nothing of the socking policies. While in the past I used socking as a means of fixing typos and making Wikipedia an encyclopedia, I now haven't been socking because I do understand the policies and why admins believe it is a harmful process, based on their designated pages, which I plan to research and use in my appeal once the stndard offer is up...
Only, it's sort of difficult to undergo a standard offer when others' edits are pinned on you, causing you do further be accused of socking thus causing your standard offer to reset without giving you a say in the matter.
You won't respond to this, but I'm saying it now, I'll humor you and try this whole operation over again hoping for the best to happen to Wikipedia and to my account while I'm gone. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
During this exchange it looks like you've gotten used to posting on Wikipedia again, so best not to post here until the ban is up. And what we are saying is still count it from the original six months, not any new six months, and then ask for reinstatement and I think it will go good for you if not much else provable pops up. Back away from the keyboard...and enjoy. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? I'm not sure I recognize any of the edits made by this address. I'm not even sure if that's me. Are you trying to blame someone else's Armen Ra edits on me again? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I used the Pennsylvania IP before to make edits to the page back in 2017. But also, it's really no surprise someone else is using an IP from the same area as me (nearly six months later -- to be exact) considering the artist has visited our region before. Obviously the performer's followers are going to try and change the article of someone they admire. And hey, if someone is going to attempt to eliminate typos or try and improve the article, it's strange an administrator would want to get in the way of that. In other words, block that IP address all you like. It serves no use to me considering it's not mine. Not that I need a use considering I'm undergoing a standard offer. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you understand we know where you submit your UTRS requests from as well, right? We know where you edit from, and your behaviors and mannerisms, and your favorite articles. I am done with this. I'll block further socks and block evasion as I see you, but am not going to entertain a standard offer. You can try to convince someone else. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's a lost cause. You're so engrossed within the case that you seem to jump at pretty much anything. It doesn't matter what happens on Wikipedia, you'll find a way to correlate it with me one way or another. I'm sure in some instances you knew an edit wasn't me and yet still found a way to make the instance out to be my fault. You can use your power and influence as an administrator to say "Oh, these two editors edited this article, and they're from the same country -- it's obviously Alex."
As soon as you "reset the standard offer", it was evident you'd do anything in your power to prevent my chances from returning to Wikipedia, despite my obvious commitment to abstinence. In other words, you didn't intend to help me out to begin with. So, yeah, I've already began confiding in some other Wikipedeans. So if you're done here, then you can stop contributing to the discussions. Oh, unless you find another edit to blame on me. Then be sure to pop in on my talk page saying you've once again blocked some innocent user of an IP address that has nothing to do with me. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, the evidence against you here is bad - WP:CHECKUSER evidence is generally pretty strong (and a lot more specific than just identifying what country you're in.) If you've got a constructive argument, make it. If all you've got left is this "this is a huuuuge coincidence and the big bad admin are meanies" routine where you try to accuse everyone else of wrongdoing except yourself (again), your talk page access will be revoked again. Sergecross73msg me19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Eveyone else" being you and ferret who are both irritated I've disagreed with your judgements, and thus have made it a goal to terminate my access to Wikipedia. Chrissymad has a strange preference-style in her own right and Ohnoitsjamie seems to have just hopped on the bandwagon. This "trend" was simply a result of your original "BLP" ban where I tried to convince you that you were wrong for a tempban being placed on me for a mistake I made in re-adding (cited) material that was previously reverted for not being cited... -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is where you guys've gotta start listening to what I'm saying. It makes sense that a local in my area with a Wikipedia article would recieve attention from other locals. I'm not too familiar with your special software and what not but I haven't edited a Wikipedia article in a week. I've used different means of editing before... maybe you're looking at all of the editors who use Heinz Hall's wifi... I'm not sure, but whatever edits you're obsessing over aren't even damaging in the first place. They actually seem legitimate. The only thing, at this point in time, is your petty obsessions over condemnation. I'm not even trying to argue anymore... all I've been continuously stating is that I'm currently engaging in the standard offer and don't plan on coming back any time soon. That's all. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the "Threaten another editor into compliance in a content dispute." aspect of WP:CHECKUSER. The only reason Checkuser would apply to me would be your assumption of sock-puppetry, which I can respect to a certain degree. Your threat to revoke my talk page access, though, is just another example of your pointless blocks -- "this user goes against my preferences, therefore I'll threaten them into submission". You won't be doing any justice in blocking my talk page access in the first place, just like all your other bans. I'm just trying to avoid Wikipedia but with everyone coming back with accusations based on evidence which possesses its fair share of fallacies, I've had no choice but to respond and try and assure you of my abstinence. I'm not sure what else I can do except say they I'm leaving and am trying my best to stay away. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of posting your final rant that you didn't break the conditions of standard offer and weren't socking...... by posting from a sock you registered three days before you were last caught IP block evading. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is expecting Alex to actual follow through promises to wait for standard offer, but if anyone is, another sock was checkuser blocked today. -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jonathan Allen Harchick, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
I've added italics to the names of television shows and a book on the page, both for accuracy and to edit the article so it can be around when the original author returns. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For now. He's trying (see above) and is now serving out his six month sentence (hopefully on bread and water). Maybe he'll get a "time served" reprieve at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I suddenly remembered that the article was declined because they felt the subject wasn't notable enough. I would like to improve the article though... I've got a whole list of improvements and material to add, hoping that I can someday persuade Wikipedia of its validity... but yeah, I just need to wait until I can get my block revoked. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You just got caught block evading as recently as last week. There's no way in hell an Admin is going to unblock you, no matter how you try to rationalize things, especially if it's the same sort of nonsense you were trying in the first 20 unblock requests. Stop wasting your time. Sergecross73msg me23:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. Please describe how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked.
You must agree to not add images to Wikipedia. If you are unblocked on Commons, you must not upload images there for use on Wikipedia.
You also have created concerns about sourcing, especially on biographies of living persons. You must address your adding of unsourced poorly and sourced content to Wikipedia.
Your account is globally locked. Should you successfully request unblock on en.wiki, you will still need to ask the Stewards-- stewardswikimedia.org.to unlock your account.
@Deepfriedokra: Respectfully, I have reservations about this unblock. I apparently don't have access to the new UTRS Beta.. But that aside, while I applied the indef block, Alex was confirmed to be socking by checkusers repeatedly, with 29 confirmed socks and 10 suspected. He's long since crossed WP:THREESTRIKES and should be considered community banned. He was also blocked from the old UTRS after repeated fraudulent attempts to get socks unblocked. -- ferret (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one link to the new UTRS beta said I wasn't an admin, and another let me read the appeals. Having read them, I still have some reservation, but I'm not outright opposing at the moment... have his editing restrictions been logged? -- ferret (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did not log the editing restrictions. Did not know about the three strikes. Did not see an indication of a checkuser block. I can defintely reblock. Wish the concerns had been raised before I actually accdepted the unblock.. --Deep fried okra(schalte ein)02:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I'm personally not up to speed on the new UTRS beta, but it looked like it had been declined earlier, so there was nothing further to add at the time. UTRS has become much more cumbersome to be aware of appeals in progress and the like, since they are not automatically posted to talk pages anymore. I hope it gets back to normal soon... I have some concern about THREESTRIKES and whether or not that means he has to appeal to the community, which is purely a technical question of policy. Since I've now been able to actually read the accepted appeal statement, he covered enough points in response to you that I do not feel like standing in the way of the unblock on normal Standard Offer grounds. There's the matter of the global lock of course which is outside of our control. -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
−
User's agreement to terms set forth.
I will: - Abstain from reverting edits (edit warring) - Stop uploading pictures on Commons to be used on Wikipedia - Be strict with my sources and abstain from adding irrelevant information - Listen to any instructions given by administrators - Never sock-puppet again (I haven’t sock-puppeted in roughly a year and I’ll continue to not sock-puppet.)
@Deepfriedokra: I am good. This was a bit of a dirty case and not everything was immediately clear in the block log. I'm not going to take it to AN myself, but leave it to your discretion. Full respect to your work in this area. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to note that this issue of getting unblock and re-blocked isn't really Alex's fault and should not reflect against him. It's an innocent mistake caught up in procedure. His next step would be to go to AN for an official appeal of the community ban. Due to the lock, I am guessing he'll need to submit the appeal through UTRS, to be cross-posted to AN for him by a UTRS admin. Having read the last appeal, I think he covered many important points, but I recommend he review what he previously wrote and consider that it will next be in a public venue, which may require a little tweaking or some thoughtful additions based on the AN thread that just concluded. -- ferret (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:CITE, WP:V and WP:NPOV
Hello, I'm General Ization. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Cameron Dallas, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! General Ization Talk 19:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Charlie Puth. Thank you. General Ization Talk 19:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Cameron Dallas. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not continue to add this information to the article without citing a reliable source. See WP:BLP. General Ization Talk 20:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits to Twenty One Pilots have been deleted. Please do not add middle names to people's names, unless you add a citation to a WP:RS that specifically states the information. Good sources would include a national newspaper article about the person, such as The New York Times, or a reliable magazine source, like Variety or Time magazine. I notice that people have been warning you about your failure to cite your sources for more than two years! If you continue to add information without citing your sources, you will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Frankly, adding middle names and family names is not very important to the encyclopedia, whereas adding important facts about the course of people's careers, if cited to a WP:Reliable source, is useful. See also WP:NOT and WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
wikimedia.org.to unlock your account.
