User talk:Loved150

Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts

Hello, Loved150! You constantly restored incorrect information on [Hotels and Resorts] and refused others to make changes without providing proper references from official sources/sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.155.223.83 (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Loved150 - Some of the current information is inaccurate, i.e. Hotel Jen Upper East Beijing doesn't exist. Most of the proposed hotels in the hotel listing are wrong. How can you provide your source of information? --202.155.223.83 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP user. The content you added to the article was Unsourced. You removed sourced content and replaced it with Unsourced content which led me to revert. Also I did not stop you or anyone from imoroving it, "anyone can edit Wikipedia". I simply left you a warning message on your talk with regards to removing sourced content and replacing it with Unsourced content Loved150 (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Loved150, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Wylie pedia @ 07:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Loved150 (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meshulam Rikli

Who is Meshulam Rikli and what edits did I make to Meshulam Riklis that were not helpful? Some specificity would be appreciated. I believe my edits, including tags and categories added, were very helpful and salutary. 98.113.89.186 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. At 21:00 hours, you removed the statement that stated that Meshulam Riklis died and instead said, "predeceased her father", a statement that made little sense in the sentence. Also, you removed the age he was he died. Despite that being stated in the source given. Instead you suggested to know where! If you wish to offer challenges to the article, start a discussion or provide reliable sources to any claims made or write things that follow up on the sentence given. That is what gave me reason to revert your edit Loved150 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did neither. Reference to "predeceased her father" was to his late daughter, Simona. I did not remove his age (see [1]) but added the "where" tag as place of death not provided. Learn to read. 98.113.89.186 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the 51 word edit that I undid Loved150 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is all I see. I had the article watchlisted. Maybe you made a mistake. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Loved150. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account for one month. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit on the low side as far as experience goes, but I did see solid anti-vandalism work so I have switched it on for a month. If all goes well you may re-apply for indefinite access after the months is up. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Beeblebrox. You indeed have every right to give a trial period of a month. I will use it sparringly and wisely to fight vandals and offcause re-apply after a month for a permanent right. Thanks Loved150 (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you Loved150 for Welcoming me to Wikipedia. And also for marking Speedy Deletion of my first article. Though it was incorrectly marked as "unsalvageably incoherent". I craeted the page under English by mistake, and had requested some Administrator to delete the page, after realizing my mistake. Profaisal (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Profaisal. I tagged it for WP:QD because you cannot write an article in a foreign language on the English Wikipedia. It's good you noticed the mistake. Please feel free to always ask when you need help so I can assist. Happy editing Loved150 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

~Swarm~ {talk} 21:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is temporary, in conjunction with your rollback grant. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you swarm. I will use the rights sparingly. Regards Loved150 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.

Dear IP User. Please refer me to the page you are talking about. Also make sure to not use offensive language in your edit summary as you did to the Cosmological constant problem. You many be blocked if such persists. Also make sure to always sign your messages Loved150 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the IP is a sock of a community-banned user whose CV is found at WP:LTA/BKFIP. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Favonian Loved150 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Ohmy45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing unrevealing

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).

Loved150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appeal as unjust my block by user NinjaRobotPirate for the reasons of likening me to someone else. I just read the tag on my talk and links began by Bbb23. Can any administrator restore me to the editing Loved150 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There must be some connection between you and Ohmy45 socks. How is it possible that you recreated the Persecuted In Search of Change article in almost the same form as previously created by socks? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm here in response to your ping. I just read the tag on my talk and links began by Bbb23: I haven't a clue what you're talking about. I don't know what "tag" you mean, and, AFAIK, I have never edited this page before now.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a misrepresentation of a ping, It must be Berean Hunter I was to reference to the ping. My worry remains that it is not just to be prevented from Wikipedia as NinjaRobotPirate makes an assumption that I resemble a blocked editor as he said here by saying I "Seem to be like a bloked editor" [2] which is not the case in anyway. Can someone look into it and restore my editing rights Loved150 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Wikipedia czommunity. I am here because I want my issue to resolved going foreward. Last night, admin NinjaRobotPirate blocked me based on the assumption. I am editing with because he revoked my editing rights based on the assumption of quote "two editors seem to share editing tweaks". I have left a message on my talk here [3] so he can unblock me because it is unjust to liken to a user i don't know in anyway & then going as far as blocking me based on that assumption but he has continued to edit despite seeing my request. A brief background is that sometime back, a checkuser Berean Hunter was asked to look into and me but could not block me after finding that am clearly not affliated to anyone here [4]. To my surprise, Ninja robot blocked me because he assumed. I view the actions of Ninja as an administrator using his full throttle power on a helpless & vulnerable non-administrator & would wish someone in here to unblock me Loved150 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loved150, do you have an explanation for Vanjagenije's observation that you recreated a page, Persecuted In Search of Change, that was originally created by SkillsM674, one of Ohmy45 socks? Because this issue can't be resolved with an explanation of why your edits are similar to the Ohmy45 sock's edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loved150, let me also comment as the person who tried to take you through some of Wikipedia's policies—and as a person who got excited to having another Namibian editor on Wikipedia, even if not all your contributions were spot-on. I cannot see what happened here due to my account restrictions. However, we do not dish out the checkuser privileges to just anyone. This is reserved for highly trusted people, and if they say there is a connection between the Loved150 account and someone else, then I'm inclined to believe that. That said, this is not a court of law. If you admit, there is no sentence following. On the contrary, admitting what you did is the first step to rehabilitation. The second step is a pledge from your side not to do it again, and then you'll likely get a chance to return to editing. If you then manage the third step which is, to indeed not do it again, you'll be fine, and nobody will bother you again with this episode. Blocked indefinitely does not mean "for all eternity". It simply means "we do not know for how long", and the how long depends on you. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Student politics in Namibia

The article Student politics in Namibia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacking secondary sources specifically discussing this topic, existing notable student organisations have their own articles.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]