Jump to content

User talk:Grandmaster Huon/Archive 1

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

April 2018

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Grandmaster Huon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23119 was submitted on Nov 03, 2018 01:04:09. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have waited more than 6 months per WP:SO. I promise I will avoid the behavior that led me to this block. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2023 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal the block that was imposed on my Wikipedia account. I understand the gravity of my past actions, and I genuinely regret any disruption or inconvenience I may have caused. I have taken this time to reflect on my behavior and to better understand Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures.

First and foremost, I acknowledge that my previous unblock request did not sufficiently address the reasons for my block. I apologize for that oversight and assure you that I am now committed to providing a more comprehensive and convincing appeal.

I want to emphasize that the block is no longer necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Over the standard waiting period, I have undergone significant personal growth and have familiarized myself thoroughly with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I am fully aware of the importance of maintaining a respectful and constructive atmosphere on the platform.

Upon reflection, I now comprehend the reasons behind my block, particularly in relation to my interaction on Oshwah's talk page regarding an irrelevant topic. I deeply regret my actions and assure you that I have learned from this mistake. I am committed to avoiding any future disruption and conflicts on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I have dedicated substantial time to studying Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. This effort has given me a clearer understanding of how I can contribute positively to the community. I am eager to channel my knowledge and passion into making valuable contributions to articles that align with my interests and expertise.

In light of my growth and newfound understanding of Wikipedia's principles, I sincerely request the opportunity to be unblocked. I assure you that my intentions are solely focused on enriching Wikipedia's content and fostering a positive environment for all users.

Thank you for considering my appeal. I am eager to rejoin the Wikipedia community and demonstrate my commitment to upholding its standards and contributing constructively. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

ChatGPT or not, I care much more about whether or not you truly 100% stand behind the statements that you added to your request, and that you're honest when the appeal states that we will not see you back in this situation again where you are blocked. It would've been nice if you had written your appeal statements on your own, because I truly believe that when users go though the time and process of manually putting their appeal statement together - typing out the reason behind what happened, your commitment to be a positive and trusted contributor moving forward, and what you plan on working on if we accept your request - forces them to think back, remember, explain and just reflect overall about their behavior. I will say that it was a good call on Ingenuity's part for recognizing this and for calling it out; +1 props are awarded for sure (I wouldn't have though about that, and I really indeed should have).

If this were a case of sock puppetry, abusive and threatening behavior toward other editors, or other serious bad-faith behavior that brings the ability for legitimate editors to contribute to a halt, I would have declined your request based off your admission that you did not write this appeal yourself. However, in this case, all you really did was leave a message on my user talk page (which didn't bother me at all), and it was interpreted as being disruptive and possible harassment. I don't think that this was your intent.

Overall... Given the evidence, your contribution history, and the technical examination that came back clean - I accept your unblock request. Welcome back, I'm happy that you wish to contribute to the project in a legitimate fashion, and I hope that we won't be back in this situation with you again. Keep you nose clean... ;-) If you have questions about anything, it's better to ask for help rather than assume. It may take some time and a demonstrable history of solid contributions without issue for full trust with some editors to be regained, but it's certainly within your ability and can be achieved. Good luck. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Other Administrators/Functionaries: You are free to decline or accept this request without my input or approval before-hand. There were some behind-the-scenes items going on, so I wanted to give this process a chance to wrap up. That's all of the details that I can state. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Grandmaster Huon - Stand by; I'm putting this request on-hold so that we can look into a few things. If everything checks out, I'll have no problem granting your request. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of recent block evasion based on technical data. --Yamla (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster Huon - did you use a large language model, like ChatGPT, to generate this unblock request? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but my commitment to work on wikipedia constructively remains genuine. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Grandmaster Huon - Your account is now unblocked. Good luck, I wish you well, and I really do hope that you stick around with us and become a knowledgeable and experienced editor here. We could sure use more of those around here. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that I an unblocked, what do you suggest for me to do?
Don't have twinkle because I an not autoconfirmed.
What articles and things could need help? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
When someone asks, "Where should I start editing?" or "What articles should I edit?", I usually tell them this: When it comes to contributing to Wikipedia from "square one" where you don't know where to even begin, the easiest way to help you with getting started and finding a direction to look is to join a WikiProject that actively discusses, verifies, expands, improves, and maintains articles about topic areas and subjects that interest you; for example, I'm big on computers, information technology, and software development - Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing would be right up my alley. ;-) The Wikipedia page on WikiProjects has a search tool here that makes finding a WikiProject easy for you. From there, you can participate, interact with fellow editors who have the same interest, and use the WikiProject page to locate articles and pages that need some help. From there, you can join other projects and groups and help participate in the activities that they do that interest you, and so on.
Who knows; your interest may not necessarily be directly related to writing content. Maybe you enjoy participating in internal Wikipedia discussions such as articles for deletion, or cleaning out things from Wikipedia's backlog. You won't really find out until you give the required instructions and policies a read, and give it a try. :-) If you find that you don't enjoy it, no worries - move on and try something else. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that there are plenty of places where you can lend a hand; eventually, you're bound to find a place that you really enjoy contributing to. All you really have to do is simply ask yourself what things you like doing, and find a project or place that focuses on that very area. ;-)
Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or help you with anything else. Good luck! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I think you would love being on WP:DISCORD, we can discuss how to improve WP more conveniently. I am on here on the same username, see you there! ;) Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, my discord information is on my user page; feel free to hit me up! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Got a new message from me! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

What are you doing? You have made four extremely specious AfD nominations in a few minutes, which is fine on its own if you are still learning how to edit -- people can make mistakes -- but the stuff at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 July 29 is just bizarre. Why are you messing with the internal templates used for sockpuppet investigations?

If you are trolling, fine, but if you're not, please try to heed some of the advice you were given in the above section. jp×g 09:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with JPxG here. I'll... give you... slightly... the benefit of the doubt here with what you were doing, but it's extremely unusual and suspicious for someone who claims to want to return as a legitimate editor to go straight to doing exactly what you did and to those exact templates. Like JPxG said: If you're just here to troll, fine - nobody is running around panicking because you managed to "trick us" into unblocking you. It only takes but (literally) one click of the mouse to send you right back through the exit door where you were before.
I unblocked you today under a principle that I believe in and despite the fact that the amount of personal effort that you put into writing your unblock appeal was near-zero. I really do hope that this is a freak coincidence and that you were just trying to learn, but my experience says that this isn't the case. Please slow down and actually start from scratch; follow the recommendations that I gave to you earlier today if you really are here to help. Or, if you're not here to do that, I guess we'll find out one way or another... The ball is in your court. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Because you're already involved here, @Oshwah, I'll refrain from reblocking, but this is extremely disruptive behavior to go through nominating half a dozen video game consoles for AFD. I also suggest this editor reveal who their original master account was. It's clear this was not a new user when they registered to immediately post to Oshwah's talk page in 2018, and their edits today suggest they've either being block evading a some point in the past 5 years to learn back end areas, or had done so prior to 2018 as well. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Ferret - I'm sure you know this already, but I'll state it again for the record: Any admin is welcome to reverse or re-instate anything that I've changed and take whatever action they see fit without needing my approval beforehand if a user's edits since my original instatement show the need to do so. Don't worry about "politics", "red tape", "I need to ask Oshwah first", or "omg I should refrain from doing this because Oshwah" - No, no you don't. :-) If instating or re-instating an action following something I've done is beneficial to Wikipedia and is what you feel is the right thing to do, please do it. That being said, you took the words out of my mouth. If you see more things like this occur by this user, do what needed and let me know. I'm keeping a close eye on things, but (obviously) n + 1 pairs of eyes is better than 1. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for my disruptive behavior, I initially thought it was good faith, I'll keep this controversy to a close. Did not think it was disruptive initially. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
How do I nominate articles for merging via twinkle like this [1] Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I never have the intention to troll. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
If you're going to get involved with vandal fighting you really should have learned what vandalism is before starting to revert other people's edits. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the project. None of the edits you have just reverted are anything close to vandalism.
The edit you reverted here [2] was the addition of a link to a completely legitimate archive site next to a unreadable dead reference. That edit was not vandalism. It could have been formatted better, but it is not vandalism.
Updating a railway station from "proposed" to "under construction" is not vandalism [3]. If you read the source in the article you would have seen that the reference was updated in 2019 to state the line is "new construction".
This [4] is not vandalism. A 5 second google search would have showed that this person is actually a part of the added band. You could have tagged it as needing a citation or reverted it as unsourced, but it is not vandalism. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster Huon, you have basically 3 days of editing experience. The fact that you are nominating pages for deletion discussions is incredibly suspicious. Editors can be active for months before they even are aware that a page like TFD exists. Stop digging yourself into a hole and just work on gaining editing experience by improving existing articles. Stay away from administrative tasks like deletion nominations.
If you have questions about Wikipedia policies and practices, bring them to the Teahouse. Oshwah has been generous with his time but the Teahouse is always open as a forum for your questions. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but I wanted to streamline wikipedia by removing what seemed to be redundant articles with the twinkle application. Now I realize that there is a better way to request a merge of articles outside of a potentially disruptive deletion process. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Grandmaster Huon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Heart (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A note on WP:Selected anniversaries

Hello! I very much appreciate your contributions to WP:Selected anniversaries as we need more content. However, some notes before you add it to a day:

  • I recommend adding new entries to the eligible section only, not the one from last year. Assemblers usually take the ones from last year and move them to eligible as to not repeat in consecutive years.
  • Added people must be a well cited article with no yellow tags. Their birthdate or death date must be cited as well.
  • Stubs are not allowed to be featured there. One of the things we want is for people to get the standard idea of how a Wikipedia article should look like. This includes it being well-sourced, and having little work needed to be a full scope article.

Let me know if you have any questions, or refer to the manual at WP:Selected anniversaries. Heart (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Trivia"

Hello. I wanted to give some feedback on these two edits: [5][6]. Please note that "trivia" on Wikipedia tends to refer to disorganized collections of somewhat unrelated information lacking in context. Inclusion of verifiable information as a part of an article's text or an organized table or list is not considered to be trivia. Information I might find to be "trivial" in nature may be interesting or important to someone else. I hope this helps. —siroχo 03:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Motoi Sakuraba.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Motoi Sakuraba.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука13 07:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:So proud of myself!.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука13 04:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion nominations

Hi, it's yer girl, Cukie, and I'm here to tell you that you really ought not to nominate articles at Articles for Deletion for a long while. Simply put, feeling like something is not notable falls short of an adequate deletion rationale, as does feeling that an article is of low quality, and thus should be removed from Wikipedia. There are certainly a lot of fiction articles, especially in the comics space, that do not do the legwork to demonstrate notability, but simply put, this is not the best way to go about it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Aztecs has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 Just wanted to let you know that this user has reported you to WP:UAA due to your long username (apparently in retaliation for you undoing their edit). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
nothing to do with retaliation, just concerned about possible violation of username policy. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
For less egregious violations (e.g. long usernames that are neither promotional nor vulgar), it's typical to discuss it with the user and, if that fails, visit WP:RFCN, not go straight to UAA.
From the UAA page, "Discuss less-serious violations with the user on their talk page so that they can rename or abandon their account in good faith. Templates such as Uw-username or Uw-coi-username may be used. If, after discussion with a user, the problem still seems unresolved, a username request for comment may be in order." Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Information icon Hi Grandmaster Huon! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mars in fiction 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. TompaDompa (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Siroxo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sideswipe (Transformers) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is an article in large part about a series of toys and your removed nearly all of the information about the toys, including substantial amounts of verifiable info. —siroχo 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I did accurately explain via the edit summaries I made below. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Grandmaster Huon. A functioning talk page is a requirement for collaborative work here, so I can't fully protect yours. If you are targeted by disruptive activity, as opposed to good-faith communication, please feel free to request protection again (though semi or extended confirmed protection is more likely to be granted than full protection). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:CIR and disruption including poor AfD/TfD/FfD/MfD nominations and bad patrol reverts. I think it's time you come clean on past accounts too..
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems a bit harsh to block a good faith user for something like this, where can we get this block reviewed please? Thanks. 78.145.49.64 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe Oshwah can help clear things out. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages

Further discussion of this is not going to be productive. For the record, deletion of talk page archives is permissible if they weren't created by moving the talk page. If anyone wants to continue this conversation/debate about the relevant policy, please do so on my talk page instead. If you want the archive deleted, Huon, let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there, your attempts to delete your talk page and archive could be interpreted as an attempt to hide past discussion about the project from other Wikipedia members. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and users need to be able to communicate via talk pages to ensure the best outcomes for the project are met. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's his archive page. I don't understand why he is trying to hide past discussion about his actions, and then goes out of his way to request full protection. NegativeMP1 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Not everything has ended up on that archive page, such as in the most recent blanking. —siroχo 18:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to retire and make sure that no one can notify me of any extraneous information anymore. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I have seen the writings on the wall. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for editing Prime's page!

File:NA-Transformers.JPG Autobot's award of honor
Thank you so much for adding a LOT to Optomus's prime's page (i know i spelled that wrong, lmao). It's great to see such great people willing to edit and contribute as much as that!! enjoy this custom Award!! :) Babysharkboss2 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
No problem!! you earned it!! keep on editing!! :) Babysharkboss2 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Once I get my block lifted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
There is hope man! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

About Your Recent AfD Nominations

Hi, Pokelego999 here, I just wanted to give a word of advice regarding your recent AfDs. You recently have been nominating a mass amount of Transformers related articles at a rate of about four per day. Now, take it from me, as someone who once nominated sixty in a day once (Please don't do that by the way, there's a reason I'm giving you advice here) nominating this many in quick succession in such a short span of time is not the greatest way to go about the issue. It floods the AfDs with a large number of articles. There are, right now, ten Transformers related articles in the AfDs right now. It takes a lot of time for the people who look through these nominations to do a search for sources, and going through eleven total nominations plus whatever else is there is a massive time sink that not many have the time to do.

While it is possible to withdraw these nominations and put them up at a later date, I don't think you're at the point where this kind of action is warranted. So, for the future, if you intend to bulk nominate a bunch of articles at once, try spacing out your nominations. Spinixster has been doing this with NCIS and CSI articles, nominating one article a day, which is a much more manageable pace for the people at the AfDs.

I will say that I definitely appreciate that you've begun doing BEFOREs, at the very least. A lot of the arguments you have for these articles are valid, but do try to space them out so the people reviewing these nominations aren't overwhelmed by a ton of articles all at once. You're not in trouble, for the record, as this isn't as inherently problematic as what I did that one time, but I do just want to advise you on this for the future should you do this again. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

AfD is not in a hurry, but getting it up there quickly is better than not getting it up at all. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
AfDs aren't in a hurry, which is why you don't need to be either. These articles have existed without issue for years, so there's no need to rush these nominations. They can afford to wait a few days, especially so as you'll eventually nominate them anyway. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Grandmaster Huon. I, for one, simply did not have time to research all the Transformers articles you nominated before they were closed as deleted. I see you have nominated more now. It's likely I won't have time to research all of those either. Please recognize it can take literal hours for other editors to do the research needed for some of these articles.
Given that you currently automatically archive pages with a day of inactivity. I want to point out this related comment from a few days ago with a similar suggestion/request. Also there is this note from just a month ago.
For full disclosure this isn't the first time I'm posting on your talk page, I've made a comment about removing large chunks of referenced information without a proper justification. My comment was in part informed by another editor's note in their edit summary.
I took another look at your recent contributions today. Here's an example of a revert you made that doesn't take into account the existing sourcing in the article. A simple find in page would have helped you identify a reliable source already used int he article to not make this mistake. This edit was by a new account, very likely a relatively new editor who made the account specifically to make this and one other change. This one was improving an infobox based on information already in the prose of the article, and the revert could be considered WP:BITEy behavior.
I don't want to badger, but given the recent spate of nominations, consider backing off on AfD for a while. Consider changing your approach to editing Wikipedia for now. I will be clear: I think you are removing too much without demonstrating an understanding of how and why to do so.
Personally, I recommend becoming familiar with WP:RS and trying to fix more problems by finding, adding, and verifying sources and adding inline citation. More importantly, perhaps the real core of how Wikipedia gets built, try adding new information from reliable sources to more articles. Start small. Doing this will help you understand the how/why/what of removing information, so you end up running into fewer problems. —siroχo 19:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the AfDs are getting disruptive and in some cases totally out of procedure. It ultimately ends up backfiring and potentially keeping bad articles on Wikipedia by making it seem like the deletions are motivated by personal dislike rather than reasoned evidence. I already found at least one case where, even though I still didn't think it satisfied GNG, there were more sources than were supposedly claimed, so clearly it's not being thorough enough. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Please set the page to archive in a longer period than just one day. WP:AUTOARCHIVE states that pages should be archived no more than once a month in almost all cases. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
but the TF articles are beyond repair other than WP:TNT. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
"Beyond repair" is a pretty bold claim, that needs to be backed up by significant editing experience actually doing... repair. People don't want to see drive-by deleters, but users who tried as hard as possible to save something before being certain it wasn't fixable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
understood. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I will always be careful for any AfDs now on,

If not, I might risk causing disruption and becoming blocked again. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I will opt for Boombox Testarossa's suggested paths for me to streamline plot summaries and articles instead of administrative work that has no room for carelessness. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
More experienced editors have tried to do what I have done recently, with little success, this is message that I should heed. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The thing is many of the articles you have nominated do need a vast amount of work. But they don't need TNT because TNT is only for subjects with zero notability, or deletion and recreation. The important stuff can all be done by bog-standard editing.
If you have a genuine desire to improve articles like the Megatron one you perhaps need to look at drafting one in your sandbox from the ground up, using sources both already in the articles and raised in AfDs as building blocks. If you do a proper job of it, no-one will object to an old, crufty article being replaced by something tighter and more accessible, though I would recommend using the talk page of said articles to outline your plans and allow time for people with different views to respond.
It is not an area I am an expert in but when looking at working heavily on a section I find it helpful to create a rough template. Other tips I would have for editing niche areas are:
  • Google is not the be-all and end-all. Print sources that may have coverage of the areas in your checklist include Wizard (magazine) and ToyFare, many issues of which are at the Internet Archive.
  • Don't disregard fan sites out of hand. While they're rarely reliable sources in themselves they will sometimes have links to things that are, such as press coverage or links to archived websites and articles that are from reliable sources, or at least give you clues for places to look. And you never know what you might find that makes a good external link.
  • Primary sources are not completely without merit and interest, as they sometimes include interviews and background. While they don't help with notability, they can be used to add information to articles if cited correctly.
If that all sounds like hard work, it's because it really can be. Therefore I would recommend you edit an area you have an interest, expertise or passion for rather than one you feel should be trashed, as that will be unrewarding for you on a personal level. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I do have a passion for transformers, that's why I feel like I want to tear down the old fancrufty articles and rebuild them from the ground up, but I'm afraid that I currently do not have the expertise to make Optimus Prime and Megatron GAs. So I'll just stick to shortening long plot summaries for now. ;) Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster Huon, part of the problem that I think you have run into is that experienced editors want new editors to work on their editing skills and improving content rather than rushing into administrative tasks like nominating articles for deletion. It is also best to have editing experience before taking on anti-vandalism work so you don't do knee-jerk reverting of IP editors (who are always an easy target for inexperienced vandal fighters) and understand that you shouldn't revert a good faith edit that you simply disagree with. I don't think you should be in a rush to be unblocked, so far, you are responding to questions posed to you, which is a good start, rather than ignoring them. Every editor receives criticism on this platform so it's best to see if it is valid and, if it is, change your behavior. It's how you become a better editor. I've been editing for 10 years and I still receive criticism, we all do. It's part of working with other people on this project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Grandmaster Huon,

I am confused by your User page where you identify as User:Sfoskett. Is this true? If so, whey did you operate two accounts? It would also mean that you orginally registered on Wikipedia 19 years ago which puts your age at much higher than I thought since you have brought up being in school. If you aren't User:Sfoskett then why did you post their "Goodbye" statement on your own User page? It seems like a really odd thing to do. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to post Sfoskett's goodbye message in my user page to reflect my previous desire to quit wikipedia, it struck a chord with me. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any understanding of the meaning of Sfoskett's chosen wording and how terribly uncivil it is? -- ferret (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand the emotion behind his wording, but I haven't realized how uncivil it is, but thank you for telling me. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
That is why I hope to revert it back. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Liz @Ferret I appreciate my conversation with @Grandmaster Huon above is getting hard to follow. I also appreciate that my word carries no significant weight in this discussion. But my current feeling contrary to my opening post on the page is that sadly the user is not yet ready to have their block lifted as they seem intent on returning to their previous behaviour and unable to credibly self-police themselves, which despite their theoretically sound ideas would be a net loss for the wider community. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I will police myself and will stop making any further deletion requests, I will delete my article checklist now. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Fine, I will not make any deletion requests again. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
If you were putting any sort of stock into what other editors were saying you would not have made the above statements.
I think you will make whatever noises you feel will get you unblocked, and then continue your behaviour exactly as before.
BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No, I genuinely do not believe in deletion anymore. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have disabled twinkle now,

So it would be much more difficult to make any problematic patrol reverts or any frequent misguided deletion nominations. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I will not focus on any potentially problematic antivandal work anymore. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding future commitments,

@BoomboxTestarossa: @Zxcvbnm: @Liz: @Pokelego999: Now that the discussion has led to a stalemate, what can we do now? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In the space of a few short hours you have vacillated between claiming to sincerely want to contribute, to wanting to be unblocked just so you could put something on your user page and retire, and back again. How is anyone to know you won't change your mind about anything else you've said? Bluntly at this stage it very much appears you either still don't understand the reasons you were blocked or don't care to do so. You have yet to give satisfactory explanations for many of the inconsistencies in your behaviour, or to show you are willing to take onboard the comments of others in a genuine, reflective manner rather than just making a knee-jerk excuse. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

My unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I started out as an IP editor and mainly edited articles within my whim and didn’t follow a pattern but then decided to delve deeper on how this public work is written. That was how I became familiar with people who ran Wikipedia like the administrator Oshwah, who I often looked up to for his integrity and gentle demeanor. I soon learned about the benefits of creating an account on Wikipedia (like editing semi-protected pages) and decided to create an account. I then started my own account on Wikipedia under my current name, and I chose to make a little interesting quip to Oshwah’s talk page about how he resembled the painter Bob Ross. I did not want to offend, but was blocked for perceived disruption. That scared me off Wikipedia for a while. I wanted to get back on Wikipedia, but School and Study commitments prevented me from returning. In the meantime, I did study Wikipedia policy and tools for editing and maintaining Wikipedia easier. (That is how I learned about redwarn and twinkle) I decided to return to Wikipedia after I had completed all my general education requirements and had a newfound desire to “trim the fat’ off Wikipedia. That is why I initially decided to nominate for deletion articles that I believed could be merged onto more notable ones, as some deletion requests of optimus prime articles have led to merges to the main article. I wanted to be bold and decided to nominate them all in one go because I would be afraid that I might forget to nominate them in the future, thereby preventing these articles from being streamlined. I was also initially concerned about the redundant SPI templates and I believed that these message templates were not taking the element of SPI seriously and treating it as a game. I was met with backlash regarding these statements for being too rash with my deletion requests. That made me much more careful regarding the handling of more high profile articles such as that of game consoles and high-profile games or essential templates. I then scanned for other articles that were poorly written and had subject material that was not notable for a general audience so as to not repeat the same debacle as before. I believed that these nominations would be uncontroversial as they would involve fictional characters that were not very notable and would be an easy culling, but I did not anticipate further backlash from the long time it would take to review and generate consensus, regardless of how notable the subject material would be. I chose the transformers articles because the subject itself was really notable from the pop culture influence from the cartoon and the recent live action films, but I believed that the majority of articles covered by the topic were of poor quality and were not notable, having extremely fancrufty articles that were unlikely to pass GNG along with good articles like the transformers live-action films would not look good to not just readers of Wikipedia searching up about transformers, but to Wikipedia as a whole. As opposed to G.I. Joe which far less people care about, and their mainstream forays into film have been commercially unsuccessful. Even though some of my edits were problematic, that doesn’t discount my major improvements. I have done to cut down fancruft in the Optimus Prime and Megatron articles as well as adding citations and making more descriptive pictures and captions in the Super Nintendo article. I also added improved gameplay depicting images to high-profile interactive media work articles such as The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom and Super Mario Bros Wonder. My Anti-Vandal work: As I had been originally blocked as a perceived vandalism-only account five years back and already facing scrutiny over my previous disruptive nominations, I decided to counter vandalism with tools such as huggle and the auto wiki browser, which required rollback permission. I talked to oshwah regarding granting rollback rights to me, but refused since he believed that I needed more experience with countering vandalism. I decided to give it a go when I decided to become a recent changes patroller, although some edits were mildly problematic, they were because I was inexperienced with patrolling vandalism and the vast majority of my reversions were beneficial in maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. The only major templates for discussion I decided to initiate was that of Infobox Transformers, even then it was for the desire to remove redundant fancruft and streamline the ability to contribute to Wikipedia. Even then, there was consensus to merge or delete this infobox in favor of Infobox Character · Regarding my Files for discussion nominations: As these nominations were not of the articles themselves, they were substantially less disruptive, they often had legitimate reasons to be deleted, the thanos files I had nominated were to ensure that non-free media in Wikipedia is used to a minimum and as a last resort. I stopped nominating them and instead turned my efforts to transformers articles, which were suffering from inappropriate use of non-free content on Wikipedia and I decided to nominate extraneous non-free files without justifying commentary, they were not as disruptive as before. · How to avert the situations that had me sanctioned from returning: Turn my main userpage into a to-do list of articles that need help or discussion with and deal with them one day at a time, that way I would not have to be compelled to mass nominate articles in a way that could be considered as disruptive. I would also suggest that the developers of twinkle provide a one day throttle for deletion requests, as to prevent new users from falling down a similar trap as I did. Dealing with counter vandalism work is tricky, so I will always defer to more experienced editors and be more careful when reverting, I already have a good relationship with Oshwah since I got unblocked, so I can always talk to him regarding countering mala fides. Indeed, competence is required on Wikipedia, but competence must be acquired too, I had just restarted editing after 5 years so my bold actions may have been executed in a way that might have fallen short of Wikipedia’s understandably strict standards, but with proper guidance, any new editor can gain experience to rise to the heights of editors that have been worked hard to help create the encyclopedia that billions around the world trust for information. I am no exception to this rule. Thank you for taking my unblock request into consideration, I am eager to rejoin this awe-inspiring community once more. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This wall of text, plus an extended conversation below, does not give me confidence that the user understands why their actions led to the block. Furthermore, they were blocked just over a month after their last block was lifted. My advice to Grandmaster Huon is to take a couple of months away from English Wikipedia (and if they really want to edit, they can edit at Simple Wikipedia or in another language). Then, when they are ready, they can open another unblock request that addresses specifically (and succinctly) what they did wrong and how they will avoid that behaviour in the future. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2023 (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.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to public belief, I have written this appeal all by myself. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I would like to see @Grandmaster Huon return as they are clearly passionate about Wikipedia and have much to contribute.
  • However, I would recommend very, very, very heavy caution on their part about triggering further AfDs, and how they handle perceived fancruft. Many of the debates following AfDs have revealed incomplete or highly subjective interpretations of Before. If the editor genuinely cares about the condition of the articles in question they need to make much more of a concerted attempt to constructively edit them before resorting to claims that they need to be TNTd or simply cutting huge chunks of them.
  • I also believe that regardless of talk page policy this user needs to be aware that interaction with other Wikipedia users is something they will have to deal with if they are going to be involved in anything but 100% uncontroversial edits, and to show more respect by taking comments from other editors onboard instead of just seemingly ignoring them. Collaboration is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia, and simply ignoring or dismissing the input of others is problematic in most areas.
I am not sure if anything I say carries any weight in this matter, but there we go. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, I will always ask you for any potential further deletion requests. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I will always listen to others before doing any action. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
You don't need to ask me, I am no arbiter of that and neither is anyone else, you should always use your own discretion. Frankly, if you're looking to have someone else rubber-stamp any potential nominations that suggests it's an area you are not currently equipped to take part in. It might be better to instead leave nominations to others for the time being; maybe try to get involved in AfD debates for pages you haven't personally nominated to get a better feel for the area. Comments like your reply to DreamFocus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicron suggest it is still an area you do not have a solid grasp on, and you appear to have made no significant attempt to salvage any of the pages you've nominated beyond a quick Google search. If a page genuinely needs deletion, someone else will flag it sooner or later. There's no haste.
However I believe that if you truly, sincerely plan to be a constructive part of the community you need to get more of a feel for what does or does not require deletion and what just requires a heavy rewrite. I would certainly advise that you should have a go at some substantial positive contributions - for example, rewriting a substandard article (or submitting one you feel is lacking from Wikipedia) - to get more of a feel and sense of respect for the research and effort that goes into such work before being so quick to use terms like "poor quality" about other editors' efforts, particularly those who often aren't around to defend themselves. Again I'm attempting to Assume Good Faith here, but comments like those you made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz (Transformers) (2nd nomination) are not acceptable, especially as the editor you mentioned has not contributed for 2 1/2 years. It's that sort of behaviour which makes it look like you're not actually being sincere about your reasons for editing.
Assuming you are honest about having a genuine desire to streamline and improve Wikipedia, there are many, many, many other options apart from AfDs. Many fictional articles have overlong plot or character summaries that require paring down; many others are tagged for merging; others contain original research. These are all things that need cleaning up which sound like they would be within your goals. If, on the other hand, you just want to blank huge sections of articles unilaterally and delete pages, well, you probably won't have much joy. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
"Many fictional articles have overlong plot or character summaries that require paring down; many others are tagged for merging; others contain original research. These are all things that need cleaning up which sound like they would be within your goals."
Where can I find these? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention; Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by issue may also be worth a look. BoomboxTestarossa EDIT: also Category:Articles to be merged (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where was it that you claimed @Oshwah: resembled Bob Ross? It also seems like the only prior block was by a different user, and for persistent vandalism. @Grandmaster Huon: These confusing statements make me wonder, was this truly not made using an AI text generator? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin I am attempting to straight-bat the user's statements and assume good faith but I must agree there are still several points of confusion and concern for myself here still. Things like an about-to-be-blocked IP user randomly posting on the talk page in support, persistent side-stepping of large sections of comments directed to the user, requests for high-level permissions, the over-frequent talk-page archiving to end discussions, the reverting of good faith edits as vandalism, calling out a long-absent editor in an AfD discussion, the claims of wanting to retire in peace/not wanting people to use their talk page followed by a long statement wanting to be unblocked... it's all a lot of bizarre activity over a month for just one account. IF they are being sincere they could make a good Wikipedian, but it is going to be very difficult for someone to gauge that, and TBH if the text IS machine-written that would be a major strike against, as my reasoning is no troll would bother typing out a long statement just to do whatever for a few days before being blocked again. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I only called out this editor because I wanted to criticize him for adding fancruft to articles. I did not want my talk page cluttered so I wanted to make it easily archived in order to prevent this. I wanted to be unblocked so I can do a few more edits and retire peacefully and return to good standing. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to call out another editor for good faith edits, certainly not when no attempt has been made to contact them personally, and definitely not when they do not seem to be an active editor and thus unable to discuss anything. It doesn't matter whether you think they've been adding fancruft (a term I think you badly need to stop using as a catch-all for content you dislike) or even if everyone else thinks they have been. There's no "only" to that, and to be honest the fact that you still seem to think this is defensible is a worry for me, and only adds to the conundrum of how you've read up enough to have views on rollback and template discussion without covering the basics of how to contribute constructively and treat other editors with respect.
You're in no position to criticise any other editors until you make some actual, genuine positive contributions of your own, IMHO. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I did here and here Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Two positive contributions...
Again, you seem to be retaining this habit of only addressing small parts of what people put to you and/or coming up with smart, snappy answers.
  1. Again, how did you apparently spent a long period of time finding out about rollback, suggested lengths of usernames and template deletion while apparently learning nothing about basic conduct?
  2. Why did you think calling out a possibly retired editor so you could criticise their edits in an AfD as in any way, shape or form acceptable, and what exactly would you have done if they had replied? Do you genuinely think fancruft is a good enough reason for a personal attack on another editor?
  3. Why have you largely sidestepped the politely-worded advice of experienced Wikipedians, or provided glib answers to their queries?
  4. Why, when @Cukie Gherkin politely advised you to leave AfDs for a while did you trigger 7 more over the next 48 hours, despite you being made aware than you were already flooding the AfD page with nominations?
  5. Why did you immediately reopen an AfD when you yourself had nominated it days before, despite your claims of having read into AfDs in some detail?
BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
1. I wanted to be bold and to become a vandal fighter and stop disruption, basic conduct is acquired over time, I apologize for being too rash with my actions, I realize now that basic conduct is about being careful with wikipedia and aligning with consensus. I did not learn extensively due to time constraints, but I got a basic feel of how internal measures worked.
2. I merely and mistakenly expressed my unfiltered opinion regarding the issue of who creates fancruft. I would have replied politely if they had acknowledged. Fancruft can impede wikipedia from being a high-quality work and I did not realize that such words may have been interpreted as a personal attack.
3. I have acknowledged the words of experienced Wikipedians and have addressed my behavior to allign with their beliefs, there is room since I am still learning the ropes. My potentially glib statements were made in my percieved best action instead of community consensus, and I wish to know what places to generate consensus if an issue like this were to happen again.
4. This was before I had the idea of having a checklist of articles to nominate, I believed that I wanted to get the nominations sooner than later, AfDs are not in a hurry and these nominations were not intended to rush. My later nominations had implemented a WP:BEFORE into their rationales, giving them legitimacy that my previous AfDs lacked.
5. The reason why the previous Cliffjumper AfD failed was because of my improper rationale, I had learned many lessons regarding how to nominate articles and doing a precheck on notability beforehand since then. I wanted to rediscuss the state of the article with my newly learned procedures. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
basic conduct is acquired over time No, it isn't. Competence might be acquired over time, but basic good conduct and civility isn't something we are here to teach you. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I have already learned this now. I won't be as reckless anymore and I will always respect you. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Even if the IP editor believes I am good faith, I wholeheartedy agree that the IP editor is definitely a mala fide. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd really not lean too hard on the "IP editor believes I am good faith" when that IP is a vandalizing LTA. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah#/media/File:Oshwah_Picture.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ross#/media/File:Bob_at_Easel.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=836729387
Their hair makes the resemblance.
I wanted to make my statement comprehensive as to explain my insight onto my sanctions and what I will do to avoid such disruption from reoccurring.
I will not take my unblock for granted as excuses are a limited resource, why should I troll if I were to be blocked again for that? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The only high level permission I wanted is to be a rollbacker to easily revert vandalism. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Could you explain why you named yourself after Huon? Or at least, picked this name knowing very well that we have an administrator named Huon, based on your very first edit. That has never been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I named myself Huon because it was a cool name that I searched online, I tried making myself huon on the create account page, but that was taken, so instead I used Grandmaster instead. I decided to make my first page as a disambiguation. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Two passerby comments from someone skeptical of the wisdom of allowing Huon's return...
    • Rollbacker is not a right useful to 95% of casual editors. I don't see anti-vandalism work in your short edit history, just rapid fire AFDs. If you get unblocked, do anti-vandalism work (which is not really what I would recommend), do it well, and do it for an extended period (as in, 6 monthss+), then maybe, but you really shouldn't worry about this or expect it any time soon. If someone gets reported at WP:AIV, the admin who blocks the vandal will do the rollback. Average, normal editors don't need it.
    • On points 4/5 above on Cliffjumper, etc.: I recognize that Huon has committed to slowing down on AfDs already before, but I just want to stress how problematic these statements are, on multiple levels. Wikipedia is not an amateur debating society with nothing better to do than debate AFDs all day. This is why even "deletionist" editors may not want a poorly-done AFD rationale if it generates a "Keep" result, because Wikipedia doesn't just allow constant AFDs until the result the nominator "prefers" is reached. And further, you need to accept that not every editor's standards are identical to yours. Even if you make the perfect, good faith, most WP:BEFORE compliant submission, many of these topics are simply notable enough for articles according to the community, and you can't just bulldoze your way past it. (This includes some of the desired cleanup work below, as well.) SnowFire (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    I want to use anti-vandal tools like huggle and antivandal, I want to do my part to maintain the encyclopedia's integrity. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    As others have said, there are plenty of other ways for you to achieve that without resort to those measures.
    1. May I ask what your intention is for the pages you have in your article checklist? Because I can't help but notice they cover similar ground to the articles you have nominated for AfD (toy/cartoon franchise characters with potential notability issues, written from a fannish POV) rather than your professed desire to work on improving articles with overlong plot summaries.
    2. Again, and I apologise in advance if this is unfair and realise it must be difficult being under the microscope like this, at times you seem to be saying you have learnt not to do X, Y, Z but other comments make it appear like you on some level don't really understand some of the suggestions/requests made of you and are almost looking for a way to game the system.
    3. I don't think you're going to troll as if you were you'd be effectively trolling yourself with the effort sunk into the unblock request, but there are many other ways to be counter-productive.
    4. However, I think my biggest worry is that you made little attempt to constructively respond to and interact with other editors with respect until after you were blocked. I am concerned that should your block be lifted you will revert to your behaviour over the past month or so and merely attempt to get it 'right' rather than genuinely re-evaluate the way you contribute to Wikipedia.
    Everyone deserves another chance and many of your responses to these questions lead me to think you have a lot to contribute and noble goals. However, every now and then some of your responses seem to miss the point of the question. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    The article checklist I made is intended to be the articles I wish to nominate for deletion for notability reasons, but only once daily, to prevent the flood of deletion requests that have plagued the community once, even with well researching and WP:Before.
    All of the other articles with overly long plot summaries have been categorized in the categories that you have shared with me. After my sanction would be lifted, we could set up a hotline together in order to rehabilitate myself and how I should contribute to wikipedia, so I can never go back to hot water again. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    :All of the other articles with overly long plot summaries have been categorized in the categories that you have shared with me. After my sanction would be lifted, we could set up a hotline together in order to rehabilitate myself and how I should contribute to wikipedia, so I can never go back to hot water again.
    • With all due respect and with no intent at being insulting, why do you think I would have time and inclination for that? That's twice now in this discussion you've basically said you'll run everything you do past someone else. No-one wants that. You either learn the conduct to police yourself, interact with others in a polite fashion and take onboard the advice people are giving you, or you either stay blocked or rapidly earn yourself another one.
    The article checklist I made is intended to be the articles I wish to nominate for deletion for notability reasons, but only once daily, to prevent the flood of deletion requests that have plagued the community once, even with well researching and WP:Before.
    • Which bit of everyone asking that you leave AfDs and other such areas for the foreseeable future did you somehow interpret as "come up with a list of articles you wish to nominate for deletion for notability reasons, but only once daily"?
    For me that's a firm underlining that if unblocked you are simply going to continue as before. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    I will police myself and take the advice and leave any potential afds alone, even if sporadic afds are controversial, completely understood now. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    This is my antivandal work. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding discord server situation

@Ferret: It seemed like I was kicked out of the server when I tried to talk with Oshwah after I was blocked, can you explain the situation further? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I still want to discuss my wikipedia situation with more likeminded people. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome to ping Oshwah here on your talk page. You were removed from the server because of your repeated canvassing issues related to AFDs. The issues there mirror the issues on site. -- ferret (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you,
I will not canvas on discord again, it was only 2 times, I have learned my lesson.
@Oshwah:, seems like you won't get me out of my situation this time, but I have hope that I can get my sanctions lifted with the addressing of others concerns of me as well as contributing, rather than culling this work. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster Huon - It's not up to me to bail you out of every instance of "Wikipedia trouble" that you find yourself back into. I accepted your initial unblock request with the hope that you wouldn't cause further disrepute in the future, and I hoped that you'd become a positive contributor to this project. I can't come to your rescue every time you get yourself into "hot water." It's up to you to do what it takes to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, listen to feedback and follow Wikipedia's norms, and understand any relevant guidelines before you jump into a focused area (such as WP:AFD). With this block, you are going to have to appeal it through the typical channels and processes if you wish for you editing privileges to be returned to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Totally understood, that is why I sent you this message. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
How can I regain access to the server ferret? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to reply to your now deleted comment about me not being a checkuser. To me this just furthers illustrates you should not be unblocked. There's something inherently dishonest about your entire interaction here. It seems weird that, although I did denote I retired checkuser on my user page before I regained my checkuser rights, you had that firmly on your mind. Second, why in the world would you try to "got you!" me on it? As if I would falsely claim to be a checkuser when I'm not, a fairly severe accusation. This goes back to what @BoomboxTestarossa has repeatedly highlighted, this kind of following people's user pages and trying to shame editors like you did at the AFD, or how you used Sfoskett's userpage quote, a user you frankly shouldn't even know about. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No that was by accident, I didn't know that you were a checkuser until I verified, I have retracted those incorrect statements, my apologies, I will not personally attack others again.
I hope I can be civil again and be unblocked. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I will not repeat the behaviors that led me blocked when I am unblocked, I only wish to be unblocked so I can change my user page and quit. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
If you have no intention to edit, you do not need to be unblocked. What would you like your userpage to say? I will update it then decline this unblock appeal. -- ferret (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I do have an intention to edit, but as a clean start, and this current block prevents me from doing this. I will completely avoid the topics and actions that got me into trouble and will replace my user page with {{clean start}}. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
because if I don't, it'll deja vu for the both of us again. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
So you've just been dishonest again. You said you planned to quit, now you say you're going to clean start. Clean starting cannot be done under a cloud of scrutiny, and you are very very much under one. -- ferret (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I changed my mind, not being dishonest. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
When will the "cloud of scrutiny" lift? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
You don't. The Discord server moderators are not interested in entertaining this. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You got mail Oshwah!

@Oshwah:

Hello, Grandmaster Huon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It meant to say Oshwah, but I can't send it to your talk page, sorry.

Even though I cannot contribute to wikipedia directly, will you still be avaliable to discuss page unprotection requests publicly on my talk page or privately via email? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

When you're unblocked, sure! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Important message

@Z1720: Now that the situation is set for me for the next few months, can you please do a favor for me and blank my userpage because ferret says it's uncivil? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I've blanked your user page for you. All the best. —siroχo 02:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Please blank my common.js as well, I don't need any fancy, distracting editing scripts anymore. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, such pages are not generally editable by others, because they actually execute javascript on the user's browser. —siroχo 06:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
You could ask an admin to blank my .js, Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Articles to improve:

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Look at my contributions @Oshwah:!

Basically rewritten this article from scratch from the english translation! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You mean the machine translated article that has dozens of citation errors, improperly translated citation titles, and other issues? -- ferret (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
They can be fixed! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
So you've created more work for other volunteers, leaving broken and unreviewed AI generated content on FRWIKI, and used it as an example for why you should be unblocked? -- ferret (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
No, but they are a good start and can easily be fixed! I want to be a good faith editor! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I hope my cross wiki contributions can lead to my return to enwiki. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Somebody already fixed my work! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you're failing to understand. They shouldn't have had to fix so much. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
If you are genuinely sincere you'd have dropped these attempts at shortcuts with Chat GTP and/or other machine writing tools long ago. If you keep looking for loopholes you'll never get anywhere. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
ChatGPT is a competent translator! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
ChatGPT should pretty much never be used for reading or writing. It is way too inaccurate, creating fluent-sounding text that contains many factual inaccuracies. Translate.google.com and similar should be used for reading sources only, never for writing, for the same reasons. Also, AI should never be used for unblock requests because it is low effort and insincere. You should probably give up all use of AI for Wikipedia going forward. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Since I am blocked, can you please revert my reassessment edits and delete the reassessment page? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: Can you please withdraw and delete my nominations for GAR for Mitsubishi i? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, blocked editors can't request edits. Please see WP:PROXYING. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Ferret, @BoomboxTestarossa, @Novem Linguae for your information, this user has been banned indefinitely from wp:fr. Sincerely. Uchroniste 40 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC).
Blocked, but not completely banned. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This type of correction just drills in that you lack any true self-reflection. We all understand the difference between ban and block. I see on other sites you keep doing this as well, trying to "gotcha" administrators and functionaries. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Its my BIRTHDAY!! so im giving out barnstars (but foy u, i'm giving you a goat) to people who've encouraged me and helped me on here.

Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

My return from my hiatus.

My experiences here have taught me to work within my limitations, not against them.

At this point, getting unblocked is a secondary goal. My primary objective is now to obtain reconciliation, as the editor in Special:Contributions/2605:B40:1303:900::/64 has largely helped with my previous motive of removing much of the fancruft that plagues much of the articles about fictional works and I salute them for their efforts. Thus I am no longer interested in substantially editing and now desire to take the role of a consultant and coordinator in this project within my talk page. I wish to continue my special relationship with Oshwah as he as been a great mentor towards me as well as my strongest advocate for me.

I hope for all the best for those who have acquainted with me to work together for a better encyclopedia. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem with being blocked is that it doesn't allow you to edit the rest of your userspace, so I cannot easily archive messages or improve articles by copy-pasting them in my sandbox and improving them from there. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I wish there was a bot that would patrol this category and use automated means to condense plot summaries, so nobody else would have to tediously deal with that. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
You can archive messages, simply by adding an ar○hive configuration for this page; see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. If you have problems with it or questions, you can reply below with questions, or start a new section on this page with your question about archiving, and add the token {{Help me}} somewhere in the message text in that section. Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Already done that. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy belated Holidays and a Happy New Year to everyone!

Let's make 2024 the year that Wikipedia got its act together to become an encyclopedia which every article fulfills its high standards!

Here's to more engagement and dedicated from all of us after our holidays and to the years to come! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster_Huon/Archive_1&oldid=1207426653"