Jump to content

User talk:The Little Platoon

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

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, The Little Platoon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 10:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your user page text, and your editing of Andrew Hastie - even if you at the moment are not in a place to have the COI issue relevant, it is worth knowing about - rather than responding in any lengthy manner, just try imbibing the sense, context and general ambience of the links above - take care. JarrahTree 11:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JarrahTree: I happily imbibe the sense, context and general ambience of the links above, which I've certainly taken in. I've been in quite a long discussion on the COI board before, disclosing my relationship with the parliament and the Admin team seemed to accept me as I am. Hope that's okay. I should tell you that from what I can tell, the articles that I have been doing on conservative figures appears to be currently targeted by one particular editor, though none of the articles I've done on progressive figures have been touched. I wonder if you can tell me what I can do about that?The Little Platoon (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flags of the red variety fly on wikipedia when you claim in your user page that you have/are/working in the office of/for a politician;

without making it an excuse to be verbose, you have to be very clear of who you are working for when you edit. Otherwise if it is not a current participation, take that out of your user page. Just because you claim you have sorted things out previously does not remove suspicion, and where there is suspicion there is the onus on your part to remove doubt as to who your worked for/working for... I have no interest in xxx figures, and the labelling. I am far more concerned that when you are editing, you identify what and who you are working for/have worked for. If the editing does not relate to any context, then make that very clear somewhere. Take care. JarrahTree 11:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be as upfront as I can given the limitations of my context. I move around a lot. I write about people on both sides of the aisle. No one tells me what to write and I get no approval on what I write. If I announced that I was working for a particular person at the top of the page, then people in parliament would work out who I am, and all the anonymity would be undone. I put all that on my user page, so then it's all out there, so far as I feel I possibly can put it out there. But I'm getting the sense from you @JarrahTree: that maybe that's not a good idea, because it's raising more questions than it's answering. So, perhaps I need to review my own policy!The Little Platoon (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just take care, make sure you keep your feet clear of any device - (ie dont shoot them) - if you wish to keep people guessing then that's your prerogative - just make sure you always have WP:RS at every turn, and perhaps gain eyes in all directions.. JarrahTree 11:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JarrahTree: I would like to take up your offer - of asking you proofread something. I think it might defuse things in this instance. Is that okay?The Little Platoon (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer not, my editing inside oz politics material has dried up, for a range of reasons. JarrahTree 12:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my revision on Li-Meng Yan Paige

[edit]

You said; "Let's move this concern to the talk page. Please don't simply undo work, please work to find a consensus. If you have information that brings into question her credentials, then add a sentence about that please.)"

You appear to be new here and you should be careful of your tone. issuing orders to editors like me that have been here 14 years is likely to ruffle feathers. the demanding nature what you wrote doesn't sit well with me. the idea that I needed to add a sentence somewhere questioning her credentials is incorrect. Not everything needs to be discussed on The Talk pages. I was correct in saying that the claim required a citation. it didn't just need a citation, in this case it required one. there was no discussion of that necessary because citations are Wikipedia policy. Most especially when you're talking about a BLP and be educational credentials required to give them credibility. I clearly stated why I was deleting it. And I issued a heads up to other editors to beware of conspiracy theorists, Fox News supporters oh, Tucker Carlson fanboys, and right-wing misinformation cranks from using this page to create false information about covid-19. I would have thought we would be on the same page regarding that. and instead of respecting that you issue orders like I just got here yesterday. and, what you said was wrong. If I have noticed it I would have come back and simply undid what you did. I saw it, it was clearly wrong, I didn't have the time to go properly Source it myself, so I deleted it. that's perfectly acceptable. It's incumbent on the editor that put it there properly Source it. it's my job as an Editor to make sure important things are properly sourced. Someone else properly sourced it and I'm fine with that. That was the point. I'm still not done making that very important page free people's personal biases and misinformation. I would appreciate your help. I'm still trying to find a way to make it clear that the to peer-review articles that she's had published, one in nature, one in Lancet, neither one of those have anything to do with person to person transmissibility which is Central to her claims. Hong Kong University, where the research was conducted that led to the peer review articles was conducted says “Specifically, Dr Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU between December 2019 and January 2020, her central assertion of the said interview,” which means that what she's claiming now didn't come from her research but comes from a so-called extensive network of professional contacts in various medical facilities in mainland China. and the paper she has published about this being lab generated is published on a website that anybody can publish on. Not peer-reviewed teamed up with Steve Bannon for gods sake. I made some changes today and actually move some things around to make sure the responses to her accusations against the Chinese lab she work for come right after the accusations, not further down.Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackhammer111: I agree, the Li-Meng Yan page is one very important page. I accept your expression of the agreed policies. And I'm glad the citations that you flagged as being required are now there. As you suggest, I am looking at this business of whether her papers support the idea of human transmission or not. This stuff is complex.The Little Platoon (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

[edit]

Didn't mean to stomp your edit. I tried to fix it, and I'm done mucking with it all for now! -- Kendrick7talk 02:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, I think it's somewhat better form to archive your talk page as things go on. Just cleaning it out is confusing... you can look at my talk page for an example of how to do it! (Probably time I archived again myself) -- Kendrick7talk 02:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good tips - and no problem about the edit stomp. I did it a second time and I think it came out better anyay.The Little Platoon (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Steve Baird (September 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
While I cannot see notability for the gentleman there is strong potential if you rewrite this to be about International Justice Mission Australia instead. Before you do that please examineInternational Justice Mission and determine whether this is the same organisation. If so you are able simply to expand that article with sources
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, The Little Platoon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to avoid editing in the area of Australian politics

[edit]

From the above and your user page it appears you work for an Australian politician. If this is the case, and you want to keep anonymous, you might have to accept a topic ban from Australian politics. WP:PAID isn't just policy, it's a legal issue as well. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: That's a really depressing thought, though I suppose I should consider it. I note that several experienced administrators and editors at the Tea House and at the COI page (where I took myself to disclose my situation) have said that I am right to be concerned about my anonymity and to disclose. I've tried to do the right thing by disclosing my connections on my talk page and the talk page of subjects I have a connection to.The Little Platoon (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: can I ask how you decided to abandon your anonymity? Did it make things simpler or more complicated?The Little Platoon (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started to post to Usenet many years ago - phone modem days. I exposed pseudoarchaeology and that led to a lot of attacks on me which have continued ever since. When I started to edit here I decided there was no point in hiding who I was. Becoming an Admin and for 2 terms an Arbitrator led to more, some pretty vicious. one even involving my wife. I've even been attacked on Breitbart. They can all go to hell so far as I'm concerned, but I've got a thick skin. I know people who have had death threats, one woman who had to go to an FBI safe house, but we're all outliers and this sort of problem is unusual. If you were editing in the area of Hindu-Muslim conflicts I would definitely advise anonymity, but you aren't. I think it's generally a good idea to be open about who you are, but in the end it's a personal choice and if there are safety isues you have to look after yourself. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: that's a chilling story about the threats. I really hope that it never happens again, particularly as it affected your family. The thing that's important for me is the quality of the articles, here for Australian leaders anyway. I just think for a democracy to function, we need to know who all these people are, what makes them tick, what they really believe. They need to be explained. How do we do that? The wikiprojects don't seem to really do much. Maybe that's where my efforts should go. Right now, there's really only one BLP of an Australian figure who is still somewhat involved in politics, that has any real quality, and that's the one on Julia Gillard. I'd like to work with more people to lift things. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts and your experience.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith

[edit]

Hey, so I haven't reported you for violating WP:3RR on this page, but someone else could and you'd probably get a 24-hour block for it. Please stop re-adding the material for now, no matter how passionately you want it in there. Pinging users who have happened to disagree with an editor you are currently disagreeing with (on totally different topics) is also an exceptionally bad idea, and is likely to get you blocked if you make a habit of it (it violates so many policies and guidelines I barely know where to start, but WP:CANVASSING and WP:BATTLEGROUND to say the least).

Although I don't entirely agree with Doug Weller above that a topic ban is inevitable, I do think you're going to have to accept that there will be a lot of scrutiny of your edits given your declared COI (which you did the right thing by declaring). Although I think you've made some good changes to the articles you've worked on, there are also clear tonal issues that your COI makes more concerning than they might otherwise be. Articles on current politicians are contentious places at the best of times, so your edits will need to not just be free of bias, but free of the appearance of bias as well. One thing I might suggest is editing some articles on another area of interest for a while, that can help you get the hang of Wikipedia's tone and policies without the COI hanging over you. I hope this is helpful, because I do think you could be a net positive for WP:AUSPOL, given we are under-resourced and that plenty of articles on current politicians are, as you rightly point out, complete crap. Frickeg (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frickeg: you know, I'm going to take that on the chin. Fair call. I shouldn't have brought in those other critics. I need to trust the process more for handling deletionists and tendentious editors. Thanks for the encouragement to lift standards. And the suggestion of going to other subject areas is sage advice too.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon. Thank you. Heart (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to @AmandaNP: and @GeneralNotability: for the great deal of time you took to work through this, interact with everyone concerned and bring it to a resolution. My experience was that the process was very thorough, though I do feel like the fact it was prosecuted was something just short of harassment, a tool of tendentious editing. I feel like I've been a bit naive in the way I was organising wiki meet-ups for people and need to find better ways to do collaboration in a way that offers transparency and while protecting anonymity.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two investigations has concluded. The investigation has come to a conclusion on your status with Controllingchaos, Veronique Cognac and Rebellious Bird, but not on your status with WelshHamlet, Border Tensions and Erasmus Sydney. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of "meet-ups", it is quite clear that there are at least a group of editors meeting up with similar agendas that extend beyond a general desire to improve Australian political articles. If these meetings are not available to Wikipedia editors at large, then these should not be referred to as "wiki meet-ups". Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think it's fair to let you know that I am very much experiencing this as a witch hunt. But I suppose we just stick to the process. I've certainly learnt a lot along the way. For example, that there are lots of ways to do a Wikimedia meetup. The advice is: “Anyone can organize a Wikimedia meetup. Although it helps to plan a bit and have some awareness of how Wikipedia works, no one needs permission to have a meetup and there is no requirement for anyone to have a meetup in a certain way.”The Little Platoon (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Onetwothreeip: I'm going to ask that you don't interact with me for a while, especially not on my talk page. I experience you as a disruptive editor, an aggressive deletionist and I find you generally uncivil. When you asked me to name my employer I, at first, thought it was just a bit nosy, given that I had already made a disclosure at the COI. But I now sense that you're actually hostile and you were trying to out me. My personal belief is that you have used administrative measures such as SPI to apply pressure on me and other editors. It's very close to harassment. I would like you to give me my reasonable space. Thank you.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to hear that you find me as hostile interacting with you, as this is the first time I've posted on your user talk page. You're free to host Wikimedia meetups, it's just that what you have been hosting don't constitute Wikimedia meetups.
As other editors have pointed out, you did not disclose your conflict of interest. What you did was disclose that you had a conflict of interest. I am not saying what you should or shouldn't do about your conflict of interest, or what you should disclose. When I asked you further information about your conflict of interest, it was information that you had not disclosed. I want to make it clear that I never asked you and would not have ever intended to ask which specific politician(s) you work for. It was not clear to me what you meant by working "in parliament", so I wanted to clarify if this meant you worked for Parliament House, a political party, a politician, a media organisation, or other entity. I had no interest and I still have no interest in knowing which particular entity you work for, only what type of entity.
I referred the matter to SPI for what has now transpired to be good reason, that multiple accounts are linked to each other, through real life personal interaction, if not by sockpuppetry. There is no way that any information gathered in those investigations can be used to publicise anything about your identity.
I hope this goes a long way to explaining any points of contention. I would ask that you don't organise for editors who you know primarily off-wiki to participate together in article talk page discussions, and that you either withdraw your accusation of harassment or clarify what you mean by this. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked above, but I'll make it really plain now. Please don't interact with me for a while. Like a couple of months. Certainly not on my talk page. I'm experiencing you as hostile. The Little Platoon (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP, Onetwothreeip, and GeneralNotability: see the block notice and explanation - this editor has finally admitted to socking with Erasmus Sydney. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller, I've been aware of the relationship between the two for a while. Will comment on the unblock request. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: Have you changed your mind on any of the following that you said? I have closed the SPI that was opened against you. For what it's worth: I'm sorry that went on so long, I probably should have intervened earlier and closed it when the filer didn't provide concrete evidence. I hope you'll continue editing with us despite this incident. Since the SPI was closed without action, the accusation of sockpuppetry should not be held against you (but if somebody does give you trouble about it, please let me know). We need clarity on the evidence required for action to be taken against users abusing multiple accounts. It was shown that there were extreme editing similarities across multiple accounts from the same location at the same time, but action has only been taken almost a year later when the behaviour was admitted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, forgive me, but I don't think you're actually looking for clarity; it looks more to me like you're asking a rhetorical question that implicitly says "told you so". To answer your question, though: of the sevenish accounts at that SPI, two turned out to be the same person. I am unhappy, in retrospect, with how much TLP and Erasmus Sydney overlapped chronologically without disclosing the relationship, but I stand by how I chose to act and would act similarly if similar circumstances came up in the future. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to reject that I'm in any way happy about this, but I understand how that may have seemed, and I thank you for answering. According to AmandaNP at the time, four of the accounts were sockpuppets, and now we confirm The Little Platoon and Erasmus Sydney which makes six. Regardless of the past, we need changes to ensure that sockpuppets are dealt with when they are brought to investigation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi The Little Platoon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Has the 3RR rule been broken here?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: sockpuppet investigation

[edit]

I have closed the SPI that was opened against you. For what it's worth: I'm sorry that went on so long, I probably should have intervened earlier and closed it when the filer didn't provide concrete evidence. I hope you'll continue editing with us despite this incident. Since the SPI was closed without action, the accusation of sockpuppetry should not be held against you (but if somebody does give you trouble about it, please let me know). GeneralNotability (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: that is a massive relief. Thanks for bringing it to a conclusion. Really decent of you.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GeneralNotability, I certainly agree that it went on for too long. I would encourage you to raise your concerns with me on my user talk page, particularly regarding the diffs and other facts I presented. The users have admitted what I alleged, that they were connected off-wiki, so I'm not sure what if anything I would need to provide further. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: This is the third time I've asked you not to interact on my talk page. I experience you as engaging in harassment. Please.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that's harassment, I just responded to GeneralNotability since they mentioned me. You've also given me a notification to come here. Anyway, have a nice day. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the fourth time I've asked. Please disengage. You've already been warned by an admin about personal attack towards me. I've already asked you to not engage with me on my talk page. @GeneralNotability: has not mentioned you above at all. To keep coming after me on my talk page, or to keep going after an investigation after an investigation has been concluded is - in my experience — very much like harassment. Please desist. The Little Platoon (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They did: when the filer didn't provide concrete evidence, referring to me. I would only respond here if you continue to mention me. If you don't mention me here, I wouldn't respond here. You can leave me a message on my talk page and I would respond on my talk page instead, if you would prefer. I have no interest in harassing you or "going after" you. No administrator has accused me of making a personal attack against you. All the best. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the fifth time I'm asking you to take leave me alone. I'm asking you not to interact with me here because I find you to be harassing. And yes, you have been warned by an admin already with the following words, "I remind you that accusing someone of being a sock without evidence is a personal attack." You are repeating the same arguments without convincing actual administrators. You are going to multiple pages trying to make your case instead of simply accepting that the matter is now closed. I strongly urge you to accept the independent input from admins on this matter and go about your business. I've been encouraged to go back to building, editing and improving articles by admins. Please leave me be.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, neither AmandaNP nor I found your evidence convincing enough to perform a technical investigation, and even with the admission that these accounts have collaborated, I do not see evidence that they have done so in a way that violates sockpuppetry policy. There is nothing further to discuss here and continuing to post on The Little Platoon's talk page will not change anything. The matter is closed.
Further, TLP has asked you several times not to post on their talk page. Per our user talk guidelines, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior. I strongly recommend that you make one further post on this talk page acknowledging that you will respect TLP's request (no arguing, no discussion, just acknowledge it) and then unwatch this talk page and stay away from it. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Anderson (Australian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black earth. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring account

[edit]

Hi The Little Platoon. Given the message you left on my talk page, I figure it would be better to ask you here. What advice has the Arbitration Committee given you? Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onetwothreeip: given that the advice is about protecting my privacy, it wouldn't make sense for me to post here. But, as I say, you are free to contact them if you have concerns.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Steve Baird

[edit]

Information icon Hello, The Little Platoon. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Steve Baird, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Steve Baird

[edit]

Hello, The Little Platoon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Steve Baird".

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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked per this post disclosing that both this account and User:Erasmus Sydney are related and that the Erasmus Sydney account lacked the COI declarations this account has. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=I wish to have this account unblocked so that I can have the account wrapped up. I wish the same for Erasmus Sydney, however, The IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. I accept the reasons for the block outlined, and now wish to leave. I would like my account deleted or locked. Please enable to me to do this. ~~~~}} The Little Platoon (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  The WordsmithTalk to me 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Little_Platoon&oldid=1241360726"