User talk:Hash Tag 444

Welcome!

Hello, Hash Tag 444! 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. Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Memory for the future. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was for a reason, I oppose the article being deleted. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Bournemouth

They are not mathematically promoted yet. Stop adding content that is unsourced and technically wrong. If they lose 10-0, and Middlesbrough win 10-0, Bournemouth would not go up. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we cannot say for sure that Bournemouth are up. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they lose 10-0, what do you think this is, non-league juniors? Bournemouth are up, end of story! It's about time too as I've waited my whole life. BTW one doesn't need the WP:CRYSTAL ball to work out Bournemouth are up and will contend for the Premier League title next season against the mighty Chelsea since Man City and Arsenal screwed up. Man United who? --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but there is no source that Bournemouth are definitely up, because they aren't. Wikipedia works on sources and facts, not 99.99% certainties and assumptions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up the Cherries! We cannot be stopped, not even by Barcelona! --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a fantastic result when you inevitably go up. (personally I'm a Norwich fan, so we'll see you in the Premier League next year) No-one expected the Cherries to do it, but IMO they've been the best team all year. That said, from a Wikipedia point of view, promotion technically hasn't happened yet. Your wording of "all put promoted" seems entirely appropriate on the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Il Divo

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Il Divo, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 19:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah all right. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the intention. The article needs to be given a chance. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish for XfD.--Cahk (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising redirects

The practice on Wikipedia is to use the category system to place pages in mainspace into categories to assist navigation and maintenance. Wikipedia:Categorization explains how and why we do this.

When it comes to redirects, we also categorise them, but not as if they were articles. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects explains how and why we do this. Please note that guidelines enjoy community consensus and editors are expected to follow that guidance unless they can make a strong case that there should be an exception.

You will see at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects #How to categorize a redirect the following:

A redirect may be categorized in the same way as for any other page; however, when it is possible to use redirect category templates (rcats), then these should be used.

The Template:R from list topic is precisely the correct rcat to use for this purpose on the page Birds of Tunisia. It explains to editors the purpose of the redirect, helpfully noting that a redirect can be used in preference to a piped link. It also places the page in the correct category, Category:Redirects from list topics without any further need for the editor adding the rcat to work out the correct category.

Now, I see that you have been engaged in an edit war to remove the rcat from that page, with no further justification than you think it clutters up the redirect. You have also engaged in incivility in your edit summary. I am warning you that your action is disruptive editing and that you may lose your privilege to edit as a result. --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

This is absolutely unacceptable. Had I seen it at the time, you would now be blocked. You are obviously quite aware of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, since you've already filed an AN/I request (for someone mentioning the quality of an edit)[1].

Your confrontational approach to experienced editors, coupled with your insistence of reverting them does not bode well for your continued participation here. Further: while this account may be new, in my view, finding your way to filing at AN/I within your first 100 edits makes it unlikely that you are a new editor. I strongly suggest that you rethink and adjust your approach here, and quickly. — Ched : ? 13:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I am new BUT I am one of those who reads the rules (and quickly). I was kinda joking when I said what I did thinking the right honourable gentleman would see the funny side of it, but it was wrong and I really meant not to offend anyone. I pledge here onward to be a "friendlier" editor. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Lower Stretton Farm Shop

Hi Hash Tag 444. I saw you removed the speedy deletion tag at Lower Stretton Farm Shop. That page is almost identical to the Farm Shop's Website. The copied text must be re-worded or removed as soon as possible, since it is a copyright violation. Copyright violations are one of only a very few things Wikipedia can't let slide. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's how I found it so easily. I have re-applied for deletion on promotional grounds and thank you for drawing copyvio to my attention. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for the autopatrolled right

The request was of course declined and you can see why at the requests page. I would further note that this type of request is extremely obnoxious. Administrators have to review every request that comes in. We don't get paid any more than you do for doing this work, so when someone files a request for a right without even knowing what it is, and makes their lack of care clear by just writing "what say" as the complete text of their request, it is frustrating. You are just wasting other user's time with such nonsense. Please be more considerate of other people's time in the future, and take the time to understand what a user right does and what the basic qualifications for it are before filing a request. . Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry for inconvenience. I will try again but a) when time is right, and b) with appropriate application. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic ape hypothesis

[2] Shows very poor judgment. A single editor has editwarred against a handful of other editors, then when blocked uses a sock to reinsert it, is reverted again whereupon you reinsert the contested material which by BRD and general editing policy needs to be excluded until there is consensus to include. I suggest you self revert.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, we'll see what comes of the talk. I have self-reverted. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth I am not categorically opposed to including at least some of it, but not by having a single purpose editor strongarming it into the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right I see the point. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong "vandal"

Hello, you have on Emmerdale selected the "wrong" vandal. There were two at each other's throats. The vandal responsible for the revision you have been trying for is User:Interference 541. If you look here[3], he or she mentions the viewership being "challenged", and the rest of the text is highly unlikely, either way, no source. Please be careful there. --Phil Copperman (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil. At least you can see that my intentions were in good faith. I couldn't see what I was reverting either for it being too long, but it looked as if a vandal's revision had gone unnoticed. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at David Miller (tenor). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page Culture Candor has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the content of the page appeared to be purely promotion of something or someone, and was unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, whether a company, product, group, service, person, religious or political belief, or anything else. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing (see note below). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of out of control, Hash Tag 444. You need to dial back the aggression I see in multiple edit summaries directed against multiple editors. Not as in "I think this would be a good idea", but as in "you must". Also, you're reverting people removing vandalism; I assume because you don't realize it. This is a short one to get your attention; hopefully this is a minor blip in a long career here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more of your edits I see, the more concerned I become. Many, probably most, of them are you either goofing around, or attacking someone. It looks like you've got about 30 hours to decide if you want to stop doing that. The next one is permanent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Floquenbeam

Sorry I have been away most of the day, I cannot edit or even touch Wikipedia while at uni and I am soon to take important end of term exams. So I have been blocked. I have read the whole ANI report and can confirm that User:Joseph2302 has indeed got the correct end of the stick, I haven't meant any harm and have maybe proven a bit incompetent. Some edits I accept were daft but none in recent days. Most of "disruption" seemed to revolve around Emmerdale whereby I genuinely believed I was reverting vandalism, because this was vandalism. So if I have committed vandalism, then so has User:Interference 541 (see [4], [5], [6], and this). So Gavin252 was not vandalizing but removing it and Interference 541 was constantly adding it. Accidentally four times? Nobody believes me so why believe them. and how about Jim1138? Are these editors going to be allowed to get away with this?

David Miller (tenor), another one I actually know nothing about since I don't listen to Il Divo (I like older music from 1980s). Obviously the being in a boyband gave me to believe that the LGBT category fitted, but what about this? User:Kangaroo Tony was blocked for vandalism, but were they on reflection?, [7], [8], [9], [10]. So I was only doing what obvious sneaky vandal User:Widr was doing, see this and four others.

So I am saying if I am banned for vandalism, then something needs to be done about Widr and Interefernce 541. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are from "recent days": [11] [12] [13] [14]. I'm not talking about one or two mistakes; I'm saying about 75% of your edits are wrong, either intentionally (in which case you need to be shown the door) or unintentionally (in which case, you need to regretfully be shown the door). And your attitude towards other editors who are cleaning up after you sucks. If you think you can stop doing stuff like that, good. If not, then please go somewhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying Floquenbeam, is that I will serve my block as a gesture of good faith, and then attempt to change the bad points. Can you tell me though, is anything going to happen with regards the other two editors I mentioned? --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those editors appear to have made rare mistakes, your issues are far more common. You weren't blocked for your edits to those two articles, you were block for widespread disruptive editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]