User talk:Owittnan/Archive 1

Seemplez, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Seemplez! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Croydon tram derailment/GA1

Seemplez, I have reopened this review; there were a number of issues that you missed, based on a quick scan of the article and the review. I'd like to suggest that you gain quite a bit more experience on Wikipedia as an editor before you start reviewing GA nominations, since the standards for such articles are high and you missed a number of things in your review.

I hope this doesn't discourage you, and that you continue contributing to Wikipedia in other areas. We always need editors to improve articles; thanks for your contributions thus far. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to be blocked over this. Learning Wikipedia takes a long time and you are bound to make mistakes along the way. What matters is that you learn from the mistake. No harm has been done and the article will be brought up to GA standard in due course. It's not far short or I wouldn't have nominated it. Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Autoblock

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "HarrisAcademyPeckham". The reason given for HarrisAcademyPeckham's block is: " There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.".

• Blocking administrator: ‪ST47‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Done. Yamla (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gandhi Muhalla Sikanderpur, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dl2000: It was an accident, I just wanted to add stub. Please assume good faith Seemplez | Chat 12:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Your experience to offer adoption to others

Hello there. Thank you for adding your name to the list of experienced editors offering to adopt newcomers. Your profile summary certainly looks impressive and enticing.

Unfortunately, after taking a look at all 222 of your past edits (and 43 edits from your previous, compromised account), I see you have only created one page thus far (this DAB page), and have made only 86 edits to mainspace in total. So, right now, I am not convinced you have anything like enough experience to be able adopt another new user, and I propose to remove your entry as an adopter.

Please tell me if I have missed anything, and if you want to discuss this further I'm only too happy to help. What I suggest you do is to continue with your Wikignoming activities, gaining closer to 500 mainspace edits, and maybe lurk at one of the Help Desks, chipping in when with a friendly, helpful response when you are able to answer a question. I found that was also a great place to learn new things from others. Having done that for a while, you'll be in a much better position to return to WP:AAU to offer to support to others. Right now, I don't think it would be fair on them if you were to become an adopter, sorry. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I see your point, you can go ahead and remove me. Seemplez 14:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, and thank you for your understanding. I really don't want to put you off, either, so if there's anything you ever need, just ask, or drop by the Teahouse where I or one of my fellow hosts will answer any queries. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Just adding welcome templates to new users pages and fighting vandalism! Seemplez 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Minor corrections and your GitHub

Hello.

At your user page, 'Wikinews' is mis-spelled as 'WikiNews'; and 'alignment' is mis-spelt as 'alignnment'. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, may I ask what is your GitHub username? I am looking for help with programming sometimes. This is why I would like to know what technologies you are familiar with.

Thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Hi mate, didn't see the mistakes, thanks. I am on GitHub as lyiriyah.

February 2020

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sweet Home Alabama, 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, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 14:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Seemplez. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Katrina Karkazis

You wrote "Hello, I'm Seemplez. I noticed that in this edit to Katrina Karkazis, you removed content without adequately explaining why." Seemplez, are you unable to read the text in the edit summary? That adequately explains why: Wikipedia is not the place for academics to put their CVs.

Those are not CVs, they are citations, like any good encyclopedia should have. You should not be reverting edits until you get an adequate understanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Seemplez 07:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Seemplez, you are mistaken. A citation is a reference that supports information presented in the article. In this case, there was simply a list of all of Katrina Karkazis' academic publications. Such information, while common in an academic CV, is not usually presented in a Wikipedia article. In fact, it is entirely irrelevant and distracting in a Wikipedia article, as one can very easily find her CV at her website. It seems to me that you do not have a clear understanding of what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.131.127.116 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been on this site for over a year and have 650-odd edits. Meanwhile you seem to have started today and have three edits, the blanking and the reverting. You are in no position to say what Wikipedia is for as you have never edited the site from this IP before today, and you don't even know to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. A list of what books someone has written is no different to what movies an actor has been in, or what products a company has released, which is necessary information. One more revert of my edits and you will be in breach of the three-revert rule and you could get IP-banned. You will be shortly reported to administrators for consistent blanking of a single page with the intention to "remove their CV". Thank you. Seemplez 07:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you have made edits in the past is not an indication that you know what Wikipedia is for. In fact, based on your inability to distinguish between citations and references, it may be an indication that you have not improved articles in the past, but simply made arbitrary changes or indeed even made them worse. If you were familiar with Wikipedia articles about researchers and scientists, you would be aware of the fact that they generally do not include lists of the publication outputs of the person the article is about. My impression is that 1. You know nothing about Katrina Karkazis, 2. You know nothing about scientific research in the field she is active in, 3. You are unfamiliar with the structure and content of articles about scientists and researchers, and 4. You are not familiar with research in general. I suggest that you refrain from further edits to Wikipedia. 85.131.127.116 (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I admit that they were not citations, my bad, but there's a snowball's chance in hell I'm going to stop editing because some high-and-mighty IP user with 5 edits told me to. If you know so much about our MOS, then you should recall the section on lists of works, which lists specifically how to put the thing you call "a CV" into an article. And before you crack out {{MOSLOW}}, the article fits the style guide. Maybe, just maybe, it is YOU who isn't familliar with the structure and content of articles, maybe it is YOU who should stop editing and maybe it is YOU who "has not improved articles, but simply made arbitrary changes or indeed even made them worse". I fight vandalism here on enwp, you can check enwn for my actual writing, and your edits consisted of vandalism, so much so we have a specific warning for when people are wrongly removing sections from articles. Seemplez 08:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about and how articles are created and edited. There is no principle "more edits = better editor". Check out some other Wikipedia pages about living researchers, and you may learn something about how they are organized. I'll point you here to start Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you..85.131.127.116 (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am genuinely laughing out loud at the unimaginable display of audacity and Dunning-Kruger we have on display here. Even if more edits != better editor, more edits === more experience. You have no edits, therefore no experience. Please get off my talk page. 08:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

If you would not make arbitrary, reckless edits to articles on topics you know nothing about, then rabidly threaten to have people who revert the changes "reported" or "banned", it would not be necessary to comment on your Talk page. What you do seem to have: A lot of free time. What you quite obviously do not have: Any useful knowledge that could be shared with the world in an online encyclopedia. 85.131.127.116 (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You are a vandal. Plain and simple. I am on the verge of emailing your ISP's abuse email, so helpfully identified by this WHOIS report. You are way above your station, acting like you're a sysop when really you are just a plain and simple IP editor. I hope that, instead of claiming that I'm inept, you LEARN. I and Jacob Gotts would not have warned you if you were:

1. Making actually decent edits

2. Not edit-warring with me

3. Learning from your mistakes

Please reflect on the fact that we always AGF, but sometimes even good faith edits are detrimental to the encyclopedia. Seemplez 08:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

So I take it you two weren't able to come to a compromise on the talk page, then? I guess I'll make an RfC. jp×g 08:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought the revised bibliography would have been acceptable, I guess not. Seemplez 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that both of you are familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to cite it aggressively at each other; I don't think that calling each other "rabid" or "high-and-mighty" is going to clear the waters any; hopefully the RfC sheds some light on the situation... jp×g 09:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please do not do any more reverts until someone has provided an opinion through the RfC. jp×g 09:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. jp×g 09:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I have a feeling that "a possible violation" is underexaggeration for me and 127.116. Seemplez 10:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Beer in Denmark

Excuse me why do you remove something from this Wikipedia website from Beer in Denmark, and please tell me why because many of these factories still exist and many of them close it so why we move them they are still finish up maybe some of them was Danish in the past, my friend, ;) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.116.173 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a bit too much for a Wikipedia article. Seemplez 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but still they are still change so why we moved them know it’s not the right way just keep, just them here on this website of this Wikipedia website and I’m not ask for any more, my friend ;) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.116.173 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)