User talk:Poetic1920

Hello

Just saying hello in order to create this page. (The intellectual equivalent of saying, "Nice weather we've having, but it might rain.") - Macspaunday (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Poetic1920, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

September 2019

Hello, I'm Wallyfromdilbert. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Hollis Robbins. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hollis Robbins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Poetic1920 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: ). Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for discussing your changes on Hollis Robbins and correcting your additions. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about editing or if you think I can help with something. I'll try to take some time later in the week to see what other information I can find about the article subject to add more content. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! User:Wallyfromdilbert I learned a lot and I am grateful. Poetic1920 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, if you want to "ping" someone and let them know you have used their name, use the format {{u|Wallyfromdilbert}} instead of the wikilink brackets. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wallyfromdilbert, I don't know if you thought a bad smell accompanied this user, but I sure did. Thank you Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I started watching the article after becoming suspicious when the user starting out by calling reasonable edits "vandalism", especially given the similar editing earlier in the day on the article. I became less suspicious of their overall motives when they started reverting most of their changes to the article and were willing to talk about what they were changing. From my own perspective, I had not seen any evidence of abusing multiple accounts as it did not seem any user or IP edits overlapped, and I tried to assume good faith (e.g., sometimes editors forget to log back in). Shame it turned out this way. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Poetic1920 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Poetic1920 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, this request has been open for over a month, and no administrator has found it convincing enough to unblock. You are welcome to submit a new unblock request, but I would substantially reword it, and advise reading the guide to appealing blocks. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:44, 19 October 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 have not used Warmlytech in a long time i changed computers! Happy never to use it again. There has been no back and forth. There was no malice just forgotten passwords. Wallyfromdilbert Please advise. Poetic1920 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines -- yes, I admit I had two accounts but not maliciously and as you can see I have been trying to comply with the guidance I have gotten from two experienced editors. I made no edits from the dormant account and I'm happy never to use it again. There has been no vandalism, just constructive editing. I've made good pages from this account and have been a good Wikipedia citizen.Poetic1920 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm don't forget to tell the reviewing admin about the enormous amount of IP edits. And, given your particular editing interests, one cannot help but wonder whether you have a COI, or even get paid for this. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Poetic1920, I am a relatively new user, while the administrators who you have interacted with are very experienced and generally know what they are doing. If you have been using multiple accounts, I would strongly suggest being open and honest about everything. The other account was used for editing on June 30, which does not seem like a long time ago, and editing as an IP user while logged out before logging in to continue the same edits as a named account does not look good. In any case, this may be a time to take a long look at Wikipedia's policies, as your recent editing has been disruptive, even if I was trying to work with you. The best advice I can give is to wait for a response to your unblock request and do not do any editing until you are unblocked, unless it is responding to concerns brought up by others on your talk page here. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when my computer crashes it logs me out and yes, I am totally up front about editing when I haven't logged back in. I forgot and continued when I logged in. There has been complete good faith here. I am happy to refrain, I have learned my lesson, and I have been a good editor and up front about learning. I am not paid but I am asked by friends to create and watch pages of academic women on wikipedia -- this is obvious from my history and I would like to continue this good work.Poetic1920 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be up front about the June edit from Warmlytech -- I had backed up this computer from an old time machine and it defaulted to the old keychain. It crashed again and next time I logged in it was this one and I have not used the other one. there is no malice or vandalism just sloppiness and an old computer! Poetic1920 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally Wallyfromdilbert if I'm indefinitely blocked or for a while, could you fix that page? It's incorrect as it is and the edits I was working on with you were correct. I reached out to the other scholars whose pages I made to have them fix their references per the correct specifications that Drmies has rightly flagged. I do regret this and would like to try again. Poetic1920 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also hoping Ser Amantio di Nicolao might help because I reached out to him -- the last version is the vandalized version from an unknown user (2601:644:877F:F6D8:5040:4AE:A637:54D0) who deleted the first request for editor help on your page (yes it is true I was logged out at that moment). Poetic1920 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lauri Scheyer concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Lauri Scheyer, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lauri Scheyer

Hello, Poetic1920. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lauri Scheyer".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Corcentric, LLC

The article Corcentric, LLC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Promotional directory of an not noteworthy business

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. Ancient library (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]