Jump to content

User talk:Félix An/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Your draft article, Draft:ExplodingTNT

Hello, Cutekids100. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "ExplodingTNT".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 21:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

April 2019

Information icon Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning (July 31)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The article still appears to be WP:TOOSOON and this has not changed since the AfD. When the full game is released and gets critical reviews it might be a pertinent time to remake the draft.
ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Baldi’s Basics in Education and Learning

I just set Draft:Baldi’s Basics in Education and Learning for deletion because of unambiguous advertising. Thank you. Arthurfan828 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free image File:7-GRAND-DAD.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:7-GRAND-DAD.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your productive edits to Mrs. Claus.

Keep up the good work! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy

1) I suggest that you read WP:NEXIST. Any content on Wikipedia must be backed with reliable sources. If you can't find a source for it or if all the sources that exist for it are unreliable ones like Youtube or Wiki websites such as Fandom, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia regardless of how "necessary" you personally feel the topic is to Wikipedia.

2) That the Kaizo Mario World article exist is irrelevant here. Two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, while the Kaizo Mario World does have a bunch of unacceptable references, it does have at least a good one in Kotaku. I couldn't find one source on the internet about The 7 Grand Dad that wasn't from either Youtube, Reddit or some Wiki website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.253.101 (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In regards to 66.130's second point, the moderate way to put things is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's basically the policy that- just because one article exists, it doesn't mean that another should as well.
Either way, I found a WP:RS after a bit of digging (it was in Italian). Therefore, I restored the content and re-added the image of the title screen for you. If you are ever in need of help, then let me know. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Userpage

A user emailed me asking about your email address posted on your userpage, and I just wanted to make sure that you knew and understood the implications. We have a couple of essays about the matter. If you decide that you do not want that information public, please let me know and we can remove it entirely from your userpage (even the history). If not, happy editing! Primefac (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's OK. That's my designated public email. Félix An (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Seth Hendrickson" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seth Hendrickson. Since you had some involvement with the Seth Hendrickson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Speaking Moistly

Notice

The article Speaking Moistly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable as per WP:NSINGLE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Moxy 🍁 07:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:7-GRAND-DAD.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:7-GRAND-DAD.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Information icon Hi Félix An! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand now! Sorry about that, Doug Weller! Félix An (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC announcements and help forums

Hello Félix An, please don't post RfC announcements on help forums. These forums are primarily intended to help new editors with editing-related questions and issues, not for announcements or other project-related messages. You could post on interested projects' talkpages, although the RfC already has a lively debate with several editors as it seems (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment for more details). GermanJoe (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blaux

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Blaux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply to your email on why I removed the exit tables

Hi Felix. I removed because it violates this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019#RfC about station layouts and exits. It seems that all my hard work is going to waste. Oh well. After I finish removing, I will be editing a lot more on zh wiki. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 17:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Despite your issues with Kringle Claus in the past, you helped them by moving their article to the main space. I applaud you for putting your differences aside. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you’re right

Sorry :/ I just know that if I read that when I was 10, I would’ve been gutted. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

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

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baldi’s Basics in Education and Learning (December 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Notability has not been established. The topic is lacking significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources.
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.
Hitro talk 06:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Félix An! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hitro talk 06:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please see WP:LISTEN. Please stop continuously making edits against the consensus at Santa Claus and restarting concluded debates on the talk page. What you're doing is disruptive and it serves no purpose. If you continue to insist on reviving this argument every few months, I will inquire about a Christmas topic ban. You have made valid contributions to WP, but your insistence at Santa Claus is beginning to overshadow everything else. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

If you're going to edit medical content, such as your revision of berberine, then please first review our medical sourcing guidelines:

Wikiproject Medicine video guide for new medical editors

Good luck. Zefr (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Zefr. I will be sure to take that into consideration in the future. Félix An (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan has an RFC

Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. SQLQuery me! 04:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Félix An (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello Felix An. I'm just letting you know that an Arbitration Case has been filed and you have been listed as a party. — Ched (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

China-Taiwan articles case request declined

The arbitrators have voted to decline the case request you were a party to, China-Taiwan articles, for reasons including the dispute being a content dispute and because previous conduct dispute resolution had not been attempted. You can view the declined case request in this permalink. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Information icon Hi Félix An! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Chinese Communist Party that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. intforce (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

intforce, I have already started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Félix An (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and pending consensus to that discussion, you should not change the article. Your initial edit was bold, but another editor reverted it. Per WP:BRD, seek resolution first. intforce (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
OK. Félix An (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your initial edit did not add any substance to the article and was controversial in nature. Users in the Talk page have rejected your edit proposal. The fact that you were edit warring in order to push your POV before you opened up the Talk page discussion doesn't help your case. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Talk:Conservapedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shangjie station has been accepted

Shangjie station, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Félix An (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Good on you for having the courage to ask this question. I too have been struck by the ugly, self-righteous tone in relation to so-called pseudoscience, and there is some evidence of it in the discussion. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Harold the Sheep I'm not saying that opposing pseudoscience is bad (it should be done), but some people who do are sometimes impatient (for lack of a better word) in their interactions with others. Félix An (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
You made it clear from the start that you weren't saying opposing pseudoscience is bad. I don't think many people who commented actually addressed what you were wondering about.
I would say that "impatient" is a euphemism. It seems to me that, along with the sneering tone, there is an odd kind of fanaticism that itself has a pseudoscientific or even pseudoreligious feel to it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Félix An:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

October 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China‎. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I left a message on your talk page. Please see it. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes you appear to have beaten me to posting by a full 21 seconds! Its still edit warring btw even with the message. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I guess we can discuss it on the talk page of the article. Félix An (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 10:28:36, 17 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Silvia Dalle Montagne


Hello Félix, thanks for reviewing my first contribution. I did my best extracting the essential parts from reliable and independent publications. Any advice about what i could cut to make the contribution meet the required characters? Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Silvia Dalle Montagne Hello Silvia! The issue with your article is that it reads like a promotional page for the musician in question, rather than an encyclopedia article. Additionally, please try to cite more reliable sources, such as news articles, as the citations are not enough to establish notability. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 19:34:43, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Silvia Dalle Montagne


Hi, how can I add news articles as you suggest? Should I upload the jpeg or pdf files?

Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Causal Mechanics

Dear Felix An, Thank you for your comment. I corrected headings of my article according to it. Earlier I deleted a part of general description that could give an impression of not objective and too personal approach. I don't know what else I can do to meet the Wiki criteria. I will appreciate any advise on that. --Козырев-Чубаров (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 20:23:43, 19 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Silvia Dalle Montagne


Dear Félix, please help me understand in the specific what I should cut to make it meet Wikipedia requirements. It's been like a hide and seek game for me so far. I'd love to fix it but I have no clue about what I should change. Many thanks! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Silvia Dalle Montagne, sorry for the late reply. At the bottom, there are only four sources cited. Try to find more reliable sources (see WP:RS to know what a reliable source is on Wikipedia) and press the "Cite" button in the visual editor to cite more sources. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Review for AFC article

Hi Felix An, sorry for disturbing. This is my first time to contribute article. I would like to request you to have a view on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jacky_Liew_(Si_Gongzi) as I had add some additional reference to prove its notability, but all the references are in Chinese, so could I request you to have a review on the article? Patricialiew (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your help desk request

I just saw it since I'm a month behind in the archives. I did some work based on this request but I'm not sure what's right since the sources are in Chinese. At the very least, what's there now doesn't have grammar errors but it may have factual errors.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:La familia del barrio

GOOD DAY I SAW YOUR MESSAGE, SO I TOOK MY TIME TO ADD MORE REFERENCES AND I ALREADY FINISHED, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND TO REVIEW IT AGAIN? AND PLEASE, IF YOU FIND A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING, WOULD YOU GIVE ME SOME POINTERS OF HOW TO FIX IT? THANK YOU AND HAVE A GOOD DAY. User:Chuklepedia (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

why?

Why are you restoring a globally locked and blocked sock puppets edit? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with keeping the page. There's no good reason to delete the content. Félix An (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced article

In the future, if you're making an incomplete article with no sources, please do so as a draft or in your userspace. You should not be creating articles like Haining railway station in mainspace with zero sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Windows Forms into Visual Basic (.NET). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

why does Taobao pay people to shake phones

You mentioned at WP:VPR that "Taobao gives out roughly 10-50 cents for free every day in their 一起摇现金 promotion, where the user can shake their phone daily and get this small amount". I'm curious, why does Taobao pay people to do that? What are they getting out of it? -sche (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not Taobao, so I can't answer that question. Félix An (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Information icon Thanks for contributing to the article Reckitt. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added the source (copied from the main article about the show, under the section about the various parodies). Félix An (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edits to Technical support scam

Your edit here is problematic for several reasons. First, you claim that the text was generated by ChatGPT. That's never an appropriate way to add information to an encyclopedia (since the information ChatGPT provides may or may not be correct). Next, the info was unsourced. Thirdly, it read like an advice column, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"VOG-L04 11.0.0.170(C792E10R1P3)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect VOG-L04 11.0.0.170(C792E10R1P3) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § VOG-L04 11.0.0.170(C792E10R1P3) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tyopgraphical error

A tag has been placed on Tyopgraphical error requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Awesome Aasim 17:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Félix_An reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: ). Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Toronto shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPathtalk 00:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

Hi Félix An, I have reverted your recent edits to Tower of Babel, since they changed the phrasing of the introduction as well as the hatnote; the current wording has been discussed (many times) at the article talk page, with a very strong consensus in favour of the factual and neutral expression origin myth. Please see the article talk page and its archives. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea,
The RfC seems to be 3 years ago, and I have brought something new with my WP:BOLD changes, since I cited several scholarly WP:RS sources. I can cite more if you'd like. Through WP:3RR, I will restore the changes. I would be happy to discuss this further on the article's talk page. Thanks Félix An (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
You can't use 3RR as an excuse to remove long standing text agreed to by an Rfc. I've reverted you. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Just saw your warnings above. 3RR is not an entitlement either, you can be blocked even without reaching or going over it. Not by me obviously. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit warring warning

You warned User:Hob Gadling against edit warring here, wrongly stating that they had "reverted to restore [their] preferred version of an article several times". What they had done was actually revert your own addition once, clearly stating their reason in the edit summary. Also, the wording of the "soft" warning template you used was only suitable for talking to a new user, not a highly experienced one as in this case ("The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware.." etc). Thirdly, if anybody would be expected to take the issue to talk ("All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus"), it would be you, not HG. (Compare WP:BRD.) Since you used this ill-fitting warning template so inappropriately, you'll probably be better off using your own words. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC).

OK, I will not use that template again. But I have to say, Hob's answer was so harsh. I doubt I will sleep well tonight. I already have two classes and a project in university to worry about, and I don't want more stress. Félix An (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I have replied at the Help Desk, since you wrote a similar post there. Bishonen | tålk 12:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC).

Information icon You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, acknowledged, thank you. Félix An (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Good morning. I have reverted you recent edits to the page Drag panic to an earlier stable version.

As you will be aware, this article has been nominated for a title change, deletion and merge previously, but the consensus was that the current title is the most accurate WP:COMMONNAME, and that its use is reflected in scholarly literature as well as the news. It is therefore WP:NPOV to refer to the standard common name, although if there is debate about the terminology among RS, this could go in a terminology/discussion section.

To avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should use RS.

I would like to invite you to use the WP:BRD process to discuss any outstanding issues on the talk page. There is a current discussion about bias and POV, so it may be helpful to add your proposed text there and then make these changes/edits only once a consensus has been reached. It may be that there is a compromise that can be reached in further distinguishing, for example, between drag panic as an idea and the protests that occur and which reference the tropes of drag panic.

Lewisguile (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Félix_An/Archive_1&oldid=1256412211"