User talk:Gd123lbp
| This is Gd123lbp's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: The Pellerhaus monument has been accepted
[edit]
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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Speedy deletion nomination of Craftsmen's Houses - Nuremberg
[edit]
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 Craftsmen's Houses - Nuremberg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Dresden Historical Neumarkt Society has been accepted
[edit]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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Amkgp (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Craftsmen's Houses - Nuremberg has been accepted
[edit]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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Five-Finger Square (Frankfurt) has been accepted
[edit]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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Toplerhaus has been accepted
[edit]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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Old Town Friends Nuremberg has been accepted
[edit]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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Salzhaus (Frankfurt am Main) (June 29)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salzhaus (Frankfurt am Main) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Salzhaus (Frankfurt am Main), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Gd123lbp!
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! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Bendergasse (June 29)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bendergasse and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bendergasse, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Roseneck (Frankfurt am Main) (June 29)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roseneck (Frankfurt am Main) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Roseneck (Frankfurt am Main), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Scharnhäuser (Frankfurt am Main) (June 29)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scharnhäuser (Frankfurt am Main) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Scharnhäuser (Frankfurt am Main), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Machine translations
[edit]I'm sorry to have had to decline several of your drafts, and I appreciate that the formatting probably took quite a bit of work. I'm hoping that you can speak/read both English and German and can clean up the translations. Are the other articles you contributed also machine translations? If so, they should probably be moved back to draftspace until the translations can be cleaned up. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience... (wish I could help, but I don't speak German!!) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, apart from this machine translation issue, you seem to have a hang of it around here. You don't need to use the articles for creation process -- feel free to create directly in the encyclopedia, or move your own drafts into the encyclopedia without waiting for to others to approve them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I can speak english and German, I have been just directly copying it in so that I can then format it. Thanks for your feedback, I will make sure it is formatted and readable before submitting it. I will look into how to create articles outside of the articles for creation process, I dont fully understand how to do it without that yet!
- By the way, the example you gave of "nonesense" like "the cookie on the rose neck" made me laugh because it does sound like nonesense! But a cookie in this sense is german for a small place or platz and the rose neck was the name of a series of houses in the frankfurt altstadt. It does sound absurd when put like that. I will work on rephrasing it. Best wishes. Gd123lbp (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gd1231lpb: Thanks for the quick reply! Pasting machine translation as a starting point is completely fine. I do that sometimes when I translate from Spanish. Yeah, for the "cookie" one I actually checked the word in the German article and went to Google Translate, and saw that something like "spot" would be a better translation. Anyways, good luck going forward! In terms of creating articles outside AFC, you can work in the "Draft" space then just move them out. Instructions for moving are at Help:How to move a page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
GirthSummit (blether) 15:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
ANI Notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gd123lbp and Alex Jones. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
[edit]
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Gd123lbp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The edits I have tried to make are a subject of debate. They are not very contentious though because many people before me have tried repeatly to make them. My edits and comments have not been "in general discord with the majority" as can be seen in the 16 talk pages of archived discussion in which the subjects "far right" and "political extremist" have been debated with many people at great length. I tried to talk through my edits with people to try to reach an understanding. It was however, when I tried to do this that I got blocked from editing the page. So it was not the edits themselves, which I stopped making once I realised the would be immediately undone.
The fact that I have been blocked following a discussion in the talk page is seriously problematic. The claim is that I "cast aspersions against people" which I did not do. But more importantly, talk pages involves discussion, nothing more. Shutting them down runs against the principles of Wikipedia as an open platform for discussion. Open dialogue and debate is at its most crucial for discussing contentious things. This is because if something is not contentious in any sense and everyone agrees, then nothing needs to be said. The admins on this page keep on shutting down the conversation by archiving it, meaning that no one can add to it and it is made harder to see the discussions. The topics about "far-right" and "political extremist" keep being brought up again and again by people who query their accuracy and objectivity, but are immediately archived because the topics are deemed "settled". This is clearly not the case if they are repeatedly brought back up and certainly does not help with bringing about an understanding in the discussion because the debate is stifled.
Secondly, I have also not cast any aspersions against anyone. This may have been when an admin on the page said I was disagreeing with "'our' coverage of Alex Jones". I wondered what they meant by "our", because this implied a group of people to which I was an outsider. This was a very exclusionary comment to make and I asked "who is 'our'? Are you in a group of people with an agenda?" This was taken as a personal attack. I have respect for people who want to improve Wikipedia and add to it and have no desire to undermine it in any way or attack anyone personally on it. I believe this is a great platform and that is why I am upset and disturbed by things that go against its core principles of tolerance, openness to discussion and most importantly; objectivity, rather than political bias.
Just to show that I am not "against the majority consensus" Here is a list of archive pages in which times people have called into question whether Alex Jones should be labelled "far right/ political extremist" in the first sentence of his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_11#We_should_NOT_include_%22far-right%22_in_the_lead_because_it_sounds_too_opinionated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_11#Jones_is_NOT_far-right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_15#Alt-right_/_far-right_in_the_lead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_15#Alt_Right?_Far_right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_16#Alex_Jones_is_not_far_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_16#Far_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_16#Biased
My view on Alex Jones' article is expressed very well by the following users comment: "...defending and upholding Wikipedia's core values by removing subjective information in favor for the objective. If Wikipedia was just 100% paraphrasing news articles, it would be a mess, and frankly it is especially on Alex Jones' page. This article is chock full of negative portrayals, but if the public should entertain them, which is fair, then they should also be given a neutral unbiased introduction..." Katabatic03 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Gd123lbp (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've read through the most recent thread and looked at the links you have provided. I'm confident that you are in the minority with respect to your views. I hope that you edit other articles during your partial block, and return with a fresh perspective after your block is over. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
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.
Important Notice
[edit]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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
——Serial 11:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Roseneck (Frankfurt am Main) has been accepted
[edit]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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Bendergasse has been accepted
[edit]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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Your many edits to Peter Hitchens (and Christopher)
[edit]Hi, fantastic work. You are very focussed on these guys, I assume you are friend or family. Made a small reversion, I don't think we can conceal Richard Evans's criticism of Peter's history book. Actually it plays to Peter's base, we Hitch fans love the way he stands up to experts. Thanks! Anti-Anti-Vaxxer2 (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not a friend or relation. I just want to improve Wikipedia and there is so much needing done on Peters page because it is so appallingly bad. It has been written by people who hate him. I am not trying to conceal criticism, my point was it was in the wrong place. It shouldn't be in the list of books, it should be in a separate section about the book. Please remove it from the section again. Gd123lbp (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Peter is certainly lucky to have somebody who is neither friend nor relation devoting a good chunk of all their edits (outside art/architecture, at least) to him - and not only that, but imagining emotional/personal motivations behind unfavourable content and removing criticisms of him. If youre suggesting the criticism should be moved, rather than removed, please go ahead. But the criticisms are there, properly cited and made by a world famous academic, you cant simply suppress them. Ive found him on Twitter and see he is actively attacking experts in a number of fields, the most recent being an OXford meteorologist. This behaviour is likely to drive criticism of quality of work, nothing personal at all. Anti-Anti-Vaxxer2 (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
(note to future editors): This account: Anti-Anti-Vaxxer2 was confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet.Gd123lbp (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Salzhaus (Frankfurt am Main) has been accepted
[edit]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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Thomas Sowells
[edit]I think your recent edits sufficiently addressed the tone. So I've removed the template. Harmswhims (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Harmswhims Gd123lbp (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electorate. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020
[edit]
Your addition to Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Diannaa You are right that the work had been "paraphrased" by me. Maybe I didnt change the wording enough to avoid a copyright infringement, in which case, I concur. However, why didn't you help paraphrase it or rewrite it using the sources instead of delete the whole section? Gd123lbp (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Triggernometry (podcast) for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Triggernometry (podcast) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggernometry (podcast) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A belated welcome!
[edit]
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gd123lbp! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sucharit Bhakdi
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sucharit Bhakdi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Starkey; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Lockdown skeptics moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Lockdown skeptics, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
There are now 27 references on the page please allow this page to be created so that I and others can work on it. Thanks. Gd123lbp (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Lockdown skeptics (October 29)
[edit]- Draft:Lockdown skeptics may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gd123lbp, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
— Newslinger talk 00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be a bad faith case by an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined. Furthermore, I have looked at the edits Special:Diff/986960661 by Anomalous25; the supposed sockpuppet account and found they were 1st party sources so I deleted them from the page. So, I do not even agree with their edits! This is a bad faith argument. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Gd123lbp, I apologize for starting the sockpuppet investigation. In light of the result, this was a bad call on my part. Thank you for reversing the edit in question, and for removing excessive primary sourcing from other articles. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020
[edit]
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Alex Jones. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Newslinger talk 13:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I haven't attacked any other editors. You need to provide evidence of it, else you are making a NPA on me. You have made attacks on me most recently in a sock puppet investigation - this needs to stop. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My last edit on Alex Jones wiki talk page was many months ago. I was going to respond a few days ago but I deleted it (you can't attack something that I deleted immediately, that's very unfair and involves quite a lot of searching through my wiki history, which appears to be doxing) Gd123lbp (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment in Special:Diff/987922159/987997941, which you had posted less than a week ago (10 November 2020), is a personal attack against other editors and is not allowed on Wikipedia. The comment was something you had submitted on-wiki, and comments on on-wiki actions are not considered doxing. Talk:Alex Jones is on my watchlist. — Newslinger talk 14:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
But to find that comment you had to pick it out from the history, because I had deleted it almost immediately. Also, I edited the comment numerous times and you have picked out a particular one which I toned down. In the comment I did not name anyone in particular, so it is not a personal attack. In sending me guidance on NPA, you are advising me on how to write better on wikipedia, yet in this instance I had already deleted and edited the comment many days before you sent me this guidance...? That is why I am objecting to what you have said. The fact that I had already edited and deleted this comment many days previously is surely enough? (also, the fact I had done this is surely evidence of my self awareness of the need to tone it down without administrator comments) Gd123lbp (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Since you are an administrator, I do take your comments seriously, but since I had already edited and deleted this post, I am not sure what you are expecting me to do? The comment I made had been deleted days before you sent me this, so if you are wanting me to improve my actions, what are you expecting from me in this instance? This really does seem unfair, especially when I make numerous edits to many other pages that are perfectly reasonable and I have written about vastly different subjects on wikipedia all without problems. If you want me to do something about the comment, I have already done so...? Gd123lbp (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC) As a resolution to this, I really think you should retract your claim that I have made personal attacks on people, when it was in a comment that I edited and then deleted. If editing or deleting are not considered good enough actions to improve wikipedia then I have no course of action to improve wikipedia. Gd123lbp (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- This warning message was posted in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator. It is not an administrative action, and your account is unchanged. As long as you avoid posting personal attacks like Special:Diff/987922159/987997941 again, you'll be fine. — Newslinger talk 15:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Please address the points I have made about editing and deletion so that we can resolve this. Gd123lbp (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- A personal attack that you made and then deleted is still a personal attack. In Special:Diff/987922159/987997941, you made disparaging comments regarding the presumed "political affiliations" of other editors who were participating on the Alex Jones and Talk:Alex Jones pages, which constitutes "a group of editors" as described in WP:PA. Editors are regularly warned for making edits that they subsequently take back: see {{Uw-selfrevert}} for a generic example. As I mentioned, if you avoid posting personal attacks like the one in Special:Diff/987922159/987997941 again, you'll be fine. Otherwise, it is a policy violation regardless of whether you subsequently delete it. — Newslinger talk 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
General sanctions notification
[edit] | 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. |
FDW777 (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Edits by User:Alexbrn @ ANI
[edit]Hello Gd123lbp, can you, on WP:ANI#Edits by User:Alexbrn, please provide diffs to back up your accusation of “ensuing edit warring by the user” so that we can move forward? Thanks! ◅ Sebastian 10:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I closed this case, as the accusations have not been proven, but to the contrary been aggravated by further unproven accusations. You are herewith admonished to not accuse other users without proving it using diffs. Note to other admins: If Gd123lbp continues to do so, I would recommend a topic ban. I think a topic ban is more appropriate than a block, as written in the text of the user warning template used by Newslinger (at 00:53, 4 November), because a block would seem rather punitive and short lived to me, while a topic ban would serve to counter the tendency of WP:OWN exhibited in this case. ◅ Sebastian 18:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
Your submission at Articles for creation: The Water Lanes, York has been accepted
[edit]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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.
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 .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Thankyou Bkissin Gd123lbp (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Basic Economics for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Basic Economics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic Economics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Note to editors: as can be seen in the debate, the claims for deletion were thoroughly disproven. the book is highly notable and sad not in violation of NPOV according to a wide majority of editors. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia: Articles for deletion: Basic Economics was closed as keep. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Harold Shipman
[edit]Hi. It has been unequivocally proven that there are fake names which signed the declaration. This therefore proves that literally anybody could sign it, and if anybody could sign it, it has no scientific relevance and no legitimacy. Seven different Harold Shipmans, Professor Ita Role, Mr Banana Rama, Dr Brian Blessed. How on earth can you possibly think this has any merit. ItsKesha (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi! The declaration was authored by top scientists. The content was by them, not the signatories. If anyone could sign it, then that explains why it became open to trolling and abuse. I am not disputing that this happened, I am saying that it has no relevance on the content of the declaration. I believe one of the authors said they regretted opening it to public signing because of this, but I think it was opened to the public so they could show support for it. Clearly Harold Shipman didn't sign it, since he's been dead for 14 years so associating him with it is false. It is quite reasonable if you read it, especially sunepta gupta's take on it, she emphasises that it is about reducing collateral damage on those who are least affected by the virus (the young) while showing compassion and care to those who need it most. I have re-added the fake names part, I simply wanted to reduce the length of the article by just stating the facts, rather than the discussion surrounding them, but I added it back in to stop this dispute. I think as far as criticism goes for the declaration, there are much better ones than this (which is more of a smear tactic.) For instance, there is difficulty in socially distancing the old and ill while the rest of society carries on. That is a very valid criticism. There is also a lot of scientific dispute about the authors claims about how the virus spreads and how far it has spread, the time frame etc. We can add better content than evidence of name calling. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Btw I asked Dr Johnny Tightlips why he signed it, but he wouldn't say haha Best wishes. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thomas Sowell
[edit]You had responded to an earlier IP's request to add something about Climate Change Denial to the BLP page. I thought you might be interested in continuing that discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the message. However, I'm not interested in continuing that conversation. Others have already made the points that needed to be made in the discussion on that page. Best wishes. Gd123lbp (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Im not quite sure why you brought this to my talk page, rather than keep it on the page that involved the discussion? Squatch347 Gd123lbp (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Scharnhäuser (Frankfurt am Main)
[edit]
Hello, Gd123lbp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Scharnhäuser (Frankfurt am Main), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Scharnhäuser (Frankfurt am Main)
[edit]Hello, Gd123lbp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scharnhäuser".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
Your draft article, Draft:Scharnhäuser (Frankfurt am Main)
[edit]Hello, Gd123lbp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scharnhäuser".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Important information
[edit]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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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. Bishonen | tålk 11:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC).
Concern regarding Draft:Five-Finger Square
[edit] Hello, Gd123lbp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Five-Finger Square, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Five-Finger Square
[edit]Hello, Gd123lbp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Five-Finger Square".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Jay Bhattacharya - Bon courage reverting your edits.
[edit]Hello. I see you've edited the Jay Bhattacharya page. What's been the behavior of editors such as Bon courage? I've noticed that the Bhattacharya page kinda sucks (clunky and repetitious language, brazen viewpoint advocacy, et cetera), but Bon courage seems to overreact by reverting anything that tends to lend credibility to the subject, preferring poor copy in order to retain the denigrating tone in the page. BleedingKansas (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Rule of thumb with Wikipedia - the more controversial a topic, the worse the Wikipedia page...
- Its always true, especially on politicised topics. The reason is simply due to human nature - people find it harder to be objective and encyclopaedic on topics they have an emotional or ideological investment in.
- I hadn't realised this when I began the Jay Bhattacharya page or others on covid, but since realising it, I no longer see any utility in continuing to write Wikipedia pages on it or other potentially controversial topics. Wikipedia is unfortunately lost to gatekeeping hot heads who cant keep Wikipedia's founding principles in mind... so to answer you question, I have no doubt that he and others are doing that, I would predict them to. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)