User talk:WinnerWolf99/Archive 4

May 2020

Hello, I'm RandomCanadian. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Lego films and TV series, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Lego Space. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

k geez sorry he just won't accept its relevance WinnerWolf99 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. RedPanda25 23:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@RedPanda25:@RedPanda25: Unless someone is hacking my computer without me knowing, that was not me. What account is supposedly me? WinnerWolf99 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (i have an account now so lol)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  — Newslinger talk 04:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

WinnerWolf99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Newslinger:I had never edited Wikipedia before, and you will notice looking at my edit history, I have learned. Please unblock me!(@RedPanda25: and please don't ask an admin to reblock me for sockpuppetry of which you have not even shown me evidence) WinnerWolf99 (talk) 10:18 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

This does not address the primary reason for the block, a series of disruptive edits to user talk pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WinnerWolf99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Rosguill:@Bongwarrior:Oh that's why... For each talk page I "disruptively edited", look at the user page for each.

Accept reason:

On closer inspection, I see that RandomCanadian, a sockpuppet of Zalgo, reverted one of your edits in May (Special:Diff/958666039), which explains why you tagged user talk pages of other sockpuppets of Zalgo. Based on this, I am unblocking this IP address and am sorry for the inconvenience.

However, please note that the {{sock}} and {{globally locked}} tags are typically only used on user pages, not user talk pages. Incorrectly adding sockpuppetry tags to many pages at once is a behavior that some sockpuppets engage in, so I had misidentified you as Zalgo. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay, but I assume that if I find said tags on a talk page and/or not on a user page, then I am permitted to add them?(only on confirmed sockpuppets, of course) WinnerWolf99 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Applying {{sock}} and {{globally locked}} tags to user pages is the standard convention. Adding these templates to user talk pages looks strange because the templates generally aren't used that way. When you added them to user talk pages, your edits triggered abuse filters that alerted me to the edits. Typically, sockpuppetry templates are added by clerks and checkusers only when needed, and you'll most likely not have to worry about them.

If you're interested in countering abuse on Wikipedia, please consider reading the policy against vandalism and then helping out with cleaning up vandalism. Signing up for a Wikipedia account would give you access to tools that make this easier. — Newslinger talk 03:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but as to the account, it's not that I don't want an account, but rather kind of hard to explain. Hopefully, soon I won't have to worry about it, and I'll make an account then, but for now, just call me 99(unless there's another 99 IPv4, but otherwise)! WinnerWolf99 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Whether to create an account is entirely your choice. Please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 07:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, could you please explain what motivated you to add all of the sockpuppetry and global lock notices to user talk pages, such as the ones on Special:Diff/985618220? — Newslinger talk 21:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger:If you look at May this year, you will notice that I actually dealed with a sockpuppet, and then I found out about them, and thought that what I did was helpful. I didn't think I'd be blocked for it, or I wouldn't have done it lol WinnerWolf99 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

New message from Newslinger

Hello, WinnerWolf99. You have new messages at Newslinger's talk page.
Message added 03:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 03:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

New message from Newslinger

Hello, WinnerWolf99. You have new messages at Newslinger's talk page.
Message added 04:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 04:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

New message from Newslinger

Hello, WinnerWolf99. You have new messages at Newslinger's talk page.
Message added 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Muse (children's magazine). - Arjayay (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arjayay:What do you mean vandalism? I was trying to build an article! — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 02:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Little Club (Gaming)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:The Little Club (Gaming), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. It's incorrect to say that it was deleted without reason, the speedy tag, which you have read said because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. and my deletion notice said G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: not notable. Also you said you contested the deletion, but you said What makes you guys even think this is promotional? which appears to be a comment rather than an explanation. In any case, tagged articles can be deleted without warning or discussion.

If you have an conflict of interest regarding this topic you must declare it. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Your draft had no references of any kind, not even to their own website. I know you indicated that refs might follow, but you shouldn't really start without anything to to support what you have written or to support notability. I have say it's hard to see, from what you have written why this group should have had any coverage in reputable sources; a quick GOOGLE found nothing beyond the social media/blog level
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. Even if we accept everything you have written as true, it's not clear why this group is notable. It seems to have no offices, employees, income or expenditure , and a tiny membership. It look as if it's just a loose informal group of games players, of which there are probably hundreds of thousands.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. Without any actual facts, your unsourced list of names seems to have no purpose other than to namecheck the group
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

There is nothing to stop you from trying again, but before attempting to do so, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also note that the title may be incorrect, "gaming" is not a proper noun Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: FYI, they have an office building and lots of subscribers(whose lowest and highest subsciber counts I shall check later). — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 03:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Your FfD voting rationales

Hello. Have you considered being more precise and explaining your votes in further details at WP:FFD? That way, other editors and I can understand your voting rationales. Also, you've been quoting other people's votes. Why not say "per <username>" instead? [Oh wait, WP:AAIFD (an essay, actually) discourages "per nom" votes, including quoting and saying exactly "agree" (or similar) and nothing more. But that's just an essay, anyways.] Alternatively, you can ease your amount of votes from now then if you can't come up with a rationale for your vote. How's that? --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho:Rationale?? Haven't I been giving clear enough reasons why??

"including quoting and saying agree" "per username" Ok I will change that now. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 23:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

All right. Struck out one of my concerns. Your rationales are fine for now. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 23:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page

User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. FASTILY 22:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's my own fricking user page!! I can put what I want on it!! — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 00:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. You do not own any page or content on Wikipedia. -FASTILY 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

-_-

IT'S MY USERPAGE!!! WOULD YOU BE HAPPY IF SOMEONE DELETED PART OF YOUR USERPAGE??? — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 00:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please stop leaving WP:ILIKEIT type votes at Wikipedia:Files for discussion (ex: 1, 2). FFD discussions are strongly rooted in policy, and these kinds of comments are disruptive to the project. Thanks, FASTILY 01:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Also what is the meaning of User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Hate? I strongly suggest you blank the page and familiarize yourself with WP:POLEMIC -FASTILY 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fastily: 1 was because it had been prodded and deleted before.

2 was because of WP:NFCC#3a and I simply said which cover I preferred. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fastily: Alright, I moved User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Hate to User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page. This better?(Will revise the page to be less attacky also.) — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 18:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fastily: Less attacky now. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

1 was because it had been prodded and deleted before. 2 was because of WP:NFCC#3a and I simply said which cover I preferred.

Then you need to explain this in detail when you opine at FfD. Deletion discussions are not a vote, they are a consensus building exercise, wherein the weight and strength of arguments are considered at closing time, and not the number of people who "voted" keep or delete.

This better?(Will revise the page to be less attacky also.)

No, it isn't. This is still unnecessarily antagonistic; your personal opinions on LGBT should not be involved with or pertinent to your contributions on Wikipedia. I think you need to either blank or remove this content entirely. -FASTILY 20:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to explain this in detail when you opine at FfD. Deletion discussions are not a vote, they are a consensus building exercise, wherein the weight and strength of arguments are considered at closing time, and not the number of people who "voted" keep or delete.

I was concensus-izing by saying my agreement for 1, and 2 I have no more argument for.

No, it isn't. This is still unnecessarily antagonistic; your personal opinions on LGBT should not be involved with or pertinent to your contributions on Wikipedia. I think you need to either blank or remove this content entirely.

You didn't read the new version of the page, did you. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 21:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I was concensus-izing by saying my agreement for 1, and 2 I have no more argument for.

That makes absolutely no sense. Like I said, deletion discussions are not a vote; if you don't have any arguments or anything meaningful to add, then there's no need for you to comment.

You didn't read the new version of the page, did you

Yeah buddy, you'll get real far in life with that snide attitude. -FASTILY 22:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

if you don't have any arguments or anything meaningful to add, then there's no need for you to comment.

What do you nothing meaningful/any arguments? I have plenty of shown reasons!

Snide! SNIDE! You are getting on my nerves... — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 00:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed your editing privileges. I've been more than patient with you, given you ample opportunity to fix an offensive userpage, and you've responded by getting defensive, uncivil, and even creating a copy of the page assuming nobody would notice. I'm not sure what your end goal is, but I'm relatively convinced it currently isn't to the benefit of Wikipedia. -FASTILY 01:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

@Fastily: Thank you very much. I shall proudly never edit Wikipedia again, and will tell my friends and family how horrible a place it is to try and be helpful. Once again, THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!! — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 01:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WinnerWolf99,

Should you wish to request to be unblocked, you can use {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}} and provide your reason. Another admin will review your appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Noting for the record that this individual is now socking and harassing me cross-wiki. -FASTILY 02:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)