AfPEN
Track the contributions of your truly, Wordenburg (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
GOCE 2018 Annual Report
editGuild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report
 Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your project coordinators:
Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Jonathan Wax aka Space Facts Wax at the NASA Rocket Launch.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Jonathan Wax aka Space Facts Wax at the NASA Rocket Launch.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Non-free content needs to adhere to the non-free content guidelines. They must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In the particular case of living people, they are almost always deemed to be replaceable (See WP:NFCC#1). In fact the non-free content guidelines specifically states "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
March GOCE newsletter
editGuild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter
 Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles. March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
AFC reviewer
editHi, I noticed on your userpage, you indicate you are an AFC reviewer. That doesn't appear to be the case but if you wish to review, you'll need to apply here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you talk, I'll be sure to apply.
March 2019
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 09:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
AfPEN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hey MER-C I was surprised to be blocked, so took the time to read on where I might have gone wrong. Anyways, my I haven't done any advertising through Wikipedia, or benefited in any way from the contents I submitted to Wikipedia. I'm sure you can see that my account is relatively new. That means I'm figuring out a few things. I'm confident, however, that I have the basics locked down. I started editing because I'm a lover of books turned blogger. Reading stuff online to find my next blog ideas has often brought me to amazing people and topics. And if they're not on Wikipedia, I try to add them. I haven't been paid a cent. However, I noticed a few contributions on my talk page that I cannot account for. I use a shared computer, and have been trying to find out who made them if at all they came from my end. I would like to keep editing on Wikipedia, and would appreciate if you unblocked my account. I just hope you do not find me irredeemable as a Wikipedia editor. AfPEN (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You believe your account has been compromised. As per WP:COMPROMISED, it is no longer eligible for unblock consideration. Yamla (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2019 (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.
Hello, AfPEN. By saying that you used a shared computer, this indicates that you can not be held responsible for the editing of this account. Each account on Wikipedia needs to be the unique account of an individual, not a group of individuals. There are no corporate or group accounts. If you ever have your own computer, you might try another unblock request. The contributions on this page that are not yours are messages from other editors. That is the purpose of an editor talk page, to communicate with each other. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
AfPEN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As noted in my first unblock request, I did not conduct any advertising through Wikipedia. I reviewed my contributions and all page creations through the account were my work. I honestly believe the subjects of those pages are worthy of representation here. I may be wrong or even subjective in believing that. But I am not compromised. I have also taken my computer of the shared network and will only use a broadband connection. I want to take full responsibility of my actions on Wikipedia from here onwards, hence the decision to secure my computer.
I consider my self an honest person, and will not lie to get back on this platform; it is voluntary work after all. I'm requesting that I be unblocked because I did not do that which I stand accused, and because I like contributing to Wikipedia. I truly hope that this is enough for you. And when you agree with me an unlock my account, I'd also appreciate to be pointed towards the particular contributions which appeared as advertisements so I can (1) learn from them; and (2) remove them. Thanks. AfPEN (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't find your answer convincing; I'm not sure if you work for an agency or not, maybe you're just treating Wikipedia like a blog, but you seem to just want to spread the word about certain people you are familiar with. I am declining your request, though you are free to make another to attempt to convince another administrator you should be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2019 (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.
What is your connection to Rod Demery? You also state on your userpage "the article so introduced by this account will be objective to the letter, regardless of the motivation for creating said article". What is your motivation? 331dot (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey 331dot (talk) there is no relationship between me and Rod Demery. He is just a subject I believe should be included in every encyclopedia there is. He's had a tremendous career and people of his ilk can and should serve as motivation to the rest of us. As for my motivation, I believe we could all do with more information on more subjects. My motivation also varies: I am genuinely impressed with Rod Demery's achievements and thought they deserved a presence on Wikipedia. There are other topics and subject I've considered introducing, such as adorable kid actors, but I figured those had little chance of getting approved. So yes, my motivation is not always objective, but I also believe that is the reason every new entry is reviewed to weed out weaker topics and bulk up those which merit a presence on Wikipedia. AfPEN (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
AfPEN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have appealed this decision twice already. This is my final appeal, as I won't appeal again if this is rejected. And unlike in previous attempts, I will not give the reason why I believe I was erroneously blocked. 331dot (talk) claims they were not convinced with my reason for the previous appeal, but the point is, I was not trying to appease or convince any editor to unblock me. I told my truth, and it is all I can offer. 331dot (talk) also speculates I know Rod Demery, but he's American; I'm African who's never left his country. You should keep the block in place if that serves Wikipedia, but having requested that I be pointed in the direction of where I went wrong to no avail, does every editor on this platform believe a mistake, if any, should be fatal? I have nothing else to give so I can be unblocked. I told my truth. If that is not enough, then I suppose I have nothing else to offer. I'll be waiting for the outcome of this appeal if at all this qualifies as such. AfPEN (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say You should keep the block in place if that serves Wikipedia
. Having reviewed your contribution, I think it does. I am declining this unblock request, and removing your access to your talk page. You may appeal through WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2019 (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 has engaged in sock puppetry with User:RayanWarfare. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- RayanWarfare is Mr.mubster. The Mubster socks and AfPEN are in different countries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This addresses NinjaRobotPirate (talk) and the assertion of sock puppetry; - First, I had no idea what it is, so I hade to read about the concept. - From what I gather, sock puppetry involves running two or more accounts; or colluding to similar effects contrary to Wikipedia goals. - To the best of my knowledge, I have not engaged in any form of Sock puppetry as identified, including Sock puppetry takes various forms:
Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address Creating new accounts to avoid detection Using another person's account (piggybacking) Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)
For this reason, I do not understand how I was involved in Sock Puppetry with User:RayanWarfare as has been claimed. Honestly I'd like to be told how, if you don't mind.
Either way, I'll await the outcome of this appeal.
- As NJP states above, RayanWarfare is a different user. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Rod Demery
edit
Hello, AfPEN. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rod Demery".
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 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! CptViraj (📧) 10:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)