Jump to content

User talk:TheAstorPastor

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

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, TheAstorPastor!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TheAstorPastor,

Thank you for taking an interest in "Waltzing Matilda". I hope that you have a good knowledge of the topic as well as as an understanding of the requirements of Wikipedia. Both are necessary for constructive editing. I will accept your deletion of my last edit although I am not sure that that I agree with your reason for doing so. Magoffin did some high quality research on "Waltzing Matilda" and also some poor quality research. I criticised his evidence as being very tenuous. This is justified by the cited reference. I also said that he seems to be biased which was perhaps based more on a book he wrote in 2005. I did not reference this book as it is very poorly written. I will accept your deletion because it is not supported by the references in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDW82 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, BDW82
I reverted your edit because it did meet the requirements of WP:NPOV.You may add the content again to the article, but please provide a reference and a reliable one.And one more thing: dont forget to sign your comments by using four tildes TheAstorPastor (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:50.81.237.217

[edit]

Hello, I have noticed you have reverted a good faith IP edit and left a level 3 warning template on the editor's talk page. Please remember that anonymous editors are human too. I suggest that you strike out the warning template, apologize to the editor and be more careful in the future. Thanks, CpX41 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the IP did not explain why they removed the content and just wrote " trimmed tagged redlines " and due to their past history of disruptive editing and the past level 2 warning template,I left a level 3 warning template.I am sorry and just going to leave an apology at their TP :) I also striked out the template The AP (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Spicy (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I am really sorry that I evaded my partial block, which was due to CIR and reverting good edits. I still revert edits but I don't revert any good edits and even if I did,it was due to a misunderstanding.I help Wikipidea by countering vandalism, and I am even working with User:Generalissima on this User:Generalissima/Amoskeag Manufacturing Company. This was good faith, and I am trying to cover up my previous mistakes by making useful and good contributions.User:ExclusiveEditor recently confessed to sock puppetry, and the community decision was to overturn his block. I hope the admin who will view this appeal would unblock me as I have only made good decisions.

Decline reason:

You were caught violating WP:SOCK rather than confessed to it. Thank you for admitting you were trying to cover up your actions, though. There's no chance this account will be unblocked but you can still use your original account, which is only partially blocked. Note that your abuse of multiple accounts to get around the sanction on that account will be held against you. Yamla (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (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.

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

@Spicy , @Yamla, @Doug Weller, as these users have previously blocked me or reviewed my unblock request on either this account or Harvici . Well, I am really sorry that I created this account and violated WP:SOCK, and I know that I shouldn't have created it. But if you go through my contributions, you will notice that I haven't shown any CIR cases (which was the reason [Harvici] was partially blocked) .WP:IAR is also one of the reasons I created this account, with others helping Wikipidea. When I disrupted the project previously (through my this account), I tried to cover up my mistakes, which was indeed wrong and I am sorry for that. With this new account, I am trying to help Wikipidea by not just reverting blatant vandalism but also trying to improve article with off-wiki discussion.I hope anyone of you would unblock me in good faith, as what I want to do is just help Wikipidea in some way. And one more thing: is it possible to permanently block User:Harvici and partially block this account as I don't have the password to Harvici and the linked email account. The AP (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a day so pinging you guys again @Spicy,@Doug Weller,@Yamla The AP (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do this. It's abusive. --Yamla (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok won't do it but would you read the above rationale The AP (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also is it possible to permanently block User:Harvici and partially block this account as I don't have the password to Harvici and the linked email account. The AP (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no path forward for you except via WP:SO which requires zero edits for six months. If you don't make any further edits (including responding to this message), that would mean you'd be eligible on 2024-11-06. I won't respond further. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla Hello, I'd like to appeal my block as I haven’t made any edits in the last 6 months, making me eligible to submit an appeal today. The AP (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. You'll need to address your block evasion and I suggest asking for a block on the Article namespace, until you've demonstrated a series of constructive WP:EDITREQ. You are free to quote me saying there's no technical evidence of recent block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Yamla , I have appealed my block here, and I would highly appreciate it if you added the comments that there is indeed no technical evidence of recent block evasion The AP (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla I have already appealed my block here Could you add your comments that no technical evidence of recent block evasion has been found, and when can I expect it to be reviewed? Many thanks! The AP (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need. You can point to this discussion. Also, I see you don't plan on offering up a ban on the Article namespace. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you recommened? Since I find it easy to edit articles directly and during these 6 months I ended up going through the policies extensively. The AP (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you what I recommend. --Yamla (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

[edit]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hello! I want to appeal my current block (i.e., the checkuser block), and I want to address how I evaded my partial block earlier.

Previously, I edited under the username Harvici, during which time I was partially blocked by Doug Weller from editing the article namespace due to CIR concerns. My efforts to reverse vandalism sometimes unintentionally removed constructive edits, and I mistakenly attempted to game the system. Although I was unaware of the gaming policy at the time, I understand it now, and I realise my actions led to the revocation of my permissions.

After this partial block, trying to act cunningly, I created TheAstorPastor account and continued editing, primarily focusing on reverting vandalism and responding to COI edit requests. However, my actions led to a block for sockpuppetry by Spicy, and my initial appeal was denied. Yamla told me that the only path forward was to refrain from editing for six months before appealing again, which I have now done.

Since the block of TheAstorPastor, I also lost access to my Harvici account, which prevents me from using it. During this six-month period, I have taken the time to review Wikipedia’s policies and reflect on my past actions. Although I was aware of the sock puppetry policy, I misunderstood the severity of my actions at the time. Since my block, I have avoided any further edits and spend some time on understanding Wikipedia’s policies and Yamla has confirmed that there is no technical evidence of recent block evasion

I am sincerely interested in returning to Wikipedia with a commitment to policy-compliant and constructive editing. I hope you can consider allowing me back to edit in the article namespace, but I fully respect any decision the reviewing administrator may make.

The AP (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello! I want to appeal my current block (i.e., the checkuser block), and I want to address how I evaded my partial block earlier. Previously, I edited under the username [[User:Harvici|Harvici]], during which time I was partially blocked by [[User:DougWeller|Doug Weller]] from editing the article namespace due to [[WP:CIR|CIR]] concerns. My efforts to reverse vandalism sometimes unintentionally removed constructive edits, and I mistakenly attempted to game the system. Although I was unaware of the gaming policy at the time, I understand it now, and I realise my actions led to the revocation of my permissions. After this partial block, trying to act cunningly, I created TheAstorPastor account and continued editing, primarily focusing on reverting vandalism and responding to COI edit requests. However, my actions led to a block for sockpuppetry by [[User:Spicy|Spicy]], and my [[User_talk:TheAstorPastor#Unblock|initial appeal]] was denied. Yamla told me that the only path forward was to [[WP:SO|refrain from editing]] for six months before appealing again, which I have now done. Since the block of TheAstorPastor, I also lost access to my Harvici account, which prevents me from using it. During this six-month period, I have taken the time to review Wikipedia’s policies and reflect on my past actions. Although I was aware of the sock puppetry policy, I misunderstood the severity of my actions at the time. Since my block, I have avoided any further edits and spend some time on understanding Wikipedia’s policies and Yamla has confirmed that there is no technical evidence of recent block evasion I am sincerely interested in returning to Wikipedia with a commitment to policy-compliant and constructive editing. I hope you can consider allowing me back to edit in the article namespace, but I fully respect any decision the reviewing administrator may make. [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 14:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello! I want to appeal my current block (i.e., the checkuser block), and I want to address how I evaded my partial block earlier. Previously, I edited under the username [[User:Harvici|Harvici]], during which time I was partially blocked by [[User:DougWeller|Doug Weller]] from editing the article namespace due to [[WP:CIR|CIR]] concerns. My efforts to reverse vandalism sometimes unintentionally removed constructive edits, and I mistakenly attempted to game the system. Although I was unaware of the gaming policy at the time, I understand it now, and I realise my actions led to the revocation of my permissions. After this partial block, trying to act cunningly, I created TheAstorPastor account and continued editing, primarily focusing on reverting vandalism and responding to COI edit requests. However, my actions led to a block for sockpuppetry by [[User:Spicy|Spicy]], and my [[User_talk:TheAstorPastor#Unblock|initial appeal]] was denied. Yamla told me that the only path forward was to [[WP:SO|refrain from editing]] for six months before appealing again, which I have now done. Since the block of TheAstorPastor, I also lost access to my Harvici account, which prevents me from using it. During this six-month period, I have taken the time to review Wikipedia’s policies and reflect on my past actions. Although I was aware of the sock puppetry policy, I misunderstood the severity of my actions at the time. Since my block, I have avoided any further edits and spend some time on understanding Wikipedia’s policies and Yamla has confirmed that there is no technical evidence of recent block evasion I am sincerely interested in returning to Wikipedia with a commitment to policy-compliant and constructive editing. I hope you can consider allowing me back to edit in the article namespace, but I fully respect any decision the reviewing administrator may make. [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 14:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello! I want to appeal my current block (i.e., the checkuser block), and I want to address how I evaded my partial block earlier. Previously, I edited under the username [[User:Harvici|Harvici]], during which time I was partially blocked by [[User:DougWeller|Doug Weller]] from editing the article namespace due to [[WP:CIR|CIR]] concerns. My efforts to reverse vandalism sometimes unintentionally removed constructive edits, and I mistakenly attempted to game the system. Although I was unaware of the gaming policy at the time, I understand it now, and I realise my actions led to the revocation of my permissions. After this partial block, trying to act cunningly, I created TheAstorPastor account and continued editing, primarily focusing on reverting vandalism and responding to COI edit requests. However, my actions led to a block for sockpuppetry by [[User:Spicy|Spicy]], and my [[User_talk:TheAstorPastor#Unblock|initial appeal]] was denied. Yamla told me that the only path forward was to [[WP:SO|refrain from editing]] for six months before appealing again, which I have now done. Since the block of TheAstorPastor, I also lost access to my Harvici account, which prevents me from using it. During this six-month period, I have taken the time to review Wikipedia’s policies and reflect on my past actions. Although I was aware of the sock puppetry policy, I misunderstood the severity of my actions at the time. Since my block, I have avoided any further edits and spend some time on understanding Wikipedia’s policies and Yamla has confirmed that there is no technical evidence of recent block evasion I am sincerely interested in returning to Wikipedia with a commitment to policy-compliant and constructive editing. I hope you can consider allowing me back to edit in the article namespace, but I fully respect any decision the reviewing administrator may make. [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 14:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The AP (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Spicy, what do you think about unblocking, with a (temporary?) pblock from article space? -- asilvering (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would need a CU check before unblocking. Spicy (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious evidence of recent socking.-- Ponyobons mots 18:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Spicy , @Yamla has already stated that "there's no technical evidence of recent block evasion" The AP (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering So? The AP (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can unblock you directly, sorry. It's above my (metaphorical) pay grade. But I think it would be reasonable to unblock you most of the way, leaving a temporary partial block from article space. You'd be able to use talk pages to suggest edits until that block expired, so you can build up some evidence that the CIR concerns are a thing of the past. -- asilvering (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a checkuser should be able to unblock me then? The AP (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser tool was used to see if there were obvious signs of recent socking; the negative finding does not mean you automatically get unblocked. An admin still has to review and act on the appeal (whether that be to accept or decline). -- Ponyobons mots 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant an admin who has checkuser rights and has checked for any socks of mine can weigh on merits and decide to unblock me . Since @Asilvering said above my (metaphorical) pay grade . The AP (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAstorPastor&oldid=1256594229"