TheGreatWikiLord (talk | contribs) |
M.Billoo2000 (talk | contribs) →2020 PSL: re Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
::::And both of them are defined (and now highlighted) by me above, they do not support what you are trying to say on the new page. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']]{{smiley}} 18:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
::::And both of them are defined (and now highlighted) by me above, they do not support what you are trying to say on the new page. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']]{{smiley}} 18:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::: Please read the "PSL 2020 to take place in Pakistan, announces PM Khan" the headline 200 times. [[User:TheGreatWikiLord|So said The Great Wiki Lord.]] ([[User talk:TheGreatWikiLord#top|talk]]) 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
::::: Please read the "PSL 2020 to take place in Pakistan, announces PM Khan" the headline 200 times. [[User:TheGreatWikiLord|So said The Great Wiki Lord.]] ([[User talk:TheGreatWikiLord#top|talk]]) 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{od|5}} |
|||
OK, then atleast link the better reference to quote Imran Khan. [https://youtube.com/watch?v=JjfOPE2r3bY] He assured about next PSL, he didn't even mentioned year 2020, nor even he said "next year's PSL" or "PSL fifth season". I am not against anyone, I just do not agree the creation of this page for now. You are predicting like you are more confirmed about it than him. Are you always right? I could be wrong often. Do you think you are the only to create the PSL related new pages on wikipedia? If you claim to be the Great or Lord, you aren't both. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']]{{smiley}} 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:49, 14 March 2019
Welcome!
Hello, TheGreatWikiLord, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Price override
Would you comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price Overide? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
CVUA
Hi, I have added another task in your academy page with some remarks in respect to your previous complete tasks. Please check and do keep the page on your watchlist. Cheers, Jim Carter 12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, please check your academy page. I have added some task there. Cheers! Jim Carter 07:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello again, I'm glad to inform you that you've passed the level one of your training, congrats! I have added another section which represent level 2 along side some more tasks. Best, Jim Carter 07:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Multan 'Sultans'?
Hi! You created two pages; 2018 Pakistan Super League and Multan Sultans. I am against this decision as for now, and I think the pages should be created after 2018 PSL players draft. You have made them too early. One more thing, Multan team has not officially got the title of 'Sultans' yet, it was just one from suggestions that were given to the franchise; briefly check out this. So, the pages should have to be deleted for now, Thanks!
Notifying Mar4d and Blue Square Thing too. M. Billoo 02:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- The 2018 season will be sometime at the start of next year, so I suspect the draft is only a few months away. That article can be kept to feature any updates and initial news about that season. But I agree as far as the Multan franchise is concerned, everything is speculative for now. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- @M.Billoo2000: This Cricinfo article appears to use Multan Sultans as the franchise name. It appears that this name is certain, even if it hasn't been officially announced yet. Cricinfo is a reliable source. So I think the article can stay. Mar4d (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I added appropriate references that confirm the information to make sure it is not "speculative." Super Bowl LVI taking place in 2021, already has a page with one reference. You link doesn't work. I think, IMHO, it is appropriate time to create these pages and let's keep them and expand them. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mar4d: OK. But then see this too, if DAWN is a reliable source so it is saying "$5.2 million per year for an eight year contract, therefore worth $41.6 million". Is this line reliable too? Because again there is no official statement for eight-years contract. Again, maybe check out the facebook vide. The owner replied on team's name, "We have several options, we haven't finalised anything else; but more than the name, we had to focus on......" This means announcement is far away, they haven't confirmed the name themselves yet! Adding references will not help right now. It will OK if they decide and announce the name 'Sultans', or what would be done here if any other name is announced instead of Sultans?
- On GreatWiki's message, Super Bowl LVI page has nothing unofficial as I checked. It says, "authorities announced... at the league's owners meeting...", so the information officially revealed as of now has been added in the page. There is no self or un-official predictions. They have a little valid info to make article stable. But here in both pages you made, you only gave intro which cannot make the page stable.
- Are you predicting the name 'Sultans' and logo by the references that are not reporting something 'exclusively' or 'officially? All has been publicly revealed already, these some references are saying just too much. As for now, I don't believe. Try to make differences between official and un-official. I don't know why Pakistani news outlets either don't report anything or try to promote "we were first for this news!" before it's official announcement. Thanks! M. Billoo 14:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am not predicting anything. I am just adding verified bits of information from mainstream newspapers. I'm really sorry, but whether you (or any of us for that matter) believe these sources or not is irrelevant. Also, I can't see your Facebook video, and I am not sure what the news article from June has to do with anything. I did not add the logo, someone else did. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Once again. How could be something verified before its official/personal confirmation. The newspapers and news outlets are maybe believable, but not when they are reporting something un-official. That was not my facebook video, I linked the official one, OK then watch that on YouTube here. I still disagree on the predictions, no matter if they are by verified newspapers. It's like saying someone prime minister before elections, or naming a newborn baby before ceremony. M. Billoo 01:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am not predicting anything. I am just adding verified bits of information from mainstream newspapers. I'm really sorry, but whether you (or any of us for that matter) believe these sources or not is irrelevant. Also, I can't see your Facebook video, and I am not sure what the news article from June has to do with anything. I did not add the logo, someone else did. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I added appropriate references that confirm the information to make sure it is not "speculative." Super Bowl LVI taking place in 2021, already has a page with one reference. You link doesn't work. I think, IMHO, it is appropriate time to create these pages and let's keep them and expand them. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mar4d, The Floka, Rayatbiz, and Blue Square Thing: Hi everyone! The name has been announced today! But please, update references now, because old were not official. Hope you understand, Thanks! M. Billoo 10:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. The Youtube video was an outdated source. It was more than 2 weeks older than my references. I am glad that it is done, and we all agree that articles stay. Thank you and have a nice day. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! After your recent edits on Multan Sultans, I would like to ask you are they really verified? Great! But I told you earlier that you should now update references that are stating something official. The image logo has not been confirmed by the team officially, then why you added image? Again, I would say that work like officially, not only on verifiability. It is better to update there, "the name was officially announced on 4 August 2017, and the logo was revealed on (…not revealed yet)" with some solid references. Can you view official Facebook page or Twitter handle of the team for further updates, as official website has not been announced yet?
- You said, "The Youtube video was… more than 2 weeks older than my references… we all agree that articles stay". But I had said, "watch that on YouTube (14 July video)… The name has been announced today (on 4 August)". This means all other news before 4 August were just only predicting the name 'Sultans' and were totally totally and totally un-official, which cannot make the articles to stay. Please revise and update articles, Thanks! M. Billoo 21:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is there Wikipedia essay or policy on officially, not only on verifiability? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi! You created 2018 Pakistan Super League players draft and Multan Sultans in 2018, there is again no more sufficient information to share on Wikipedia. Repeated information on two pages; means repeated references and different page titles; cannot support the pages. Please try to understand, wait to create new page until there is enough sufficient information. As told that only page intro is not enough. Thanks! M. Billoo 02:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you. These are nearly inevitable events about to happen shortly and will have significant amount of information and coverage. All pages start with little information. I think I created these pages at the right time. If you disagree then WP:AFD. In the meantime, I would appreciate all help in expanding these pages and would recommend WP:IAR and WP:BITE for some leisurely reading. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! There are 5 other teams too, then why not Islamabad United in 2018, Karachi Kings in 2018 and so on pages have been created? Yes, because of lack of sufficient info; better see this too. I obviously don't want to add it in WP:Afd myself, but we have to wait to create new pages. Apart from WP:IAR, consider discussing other users too. And what do you mean by WP:BITE here? M. Billoo 02:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Check the references. By the way, which "consensus" are you talking about? You have a history of something on wikipedia, which I don't want to mention right now, as your talk page is itself an evidence. Notifying A Simple Human too, whom you reverted. Thanks! M. Billoo 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of 2018 Indoor Football League season for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Indoor Football League season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Indoor Football League season until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Public Discussion with Wikipedia
Hi, Dr Netchitailova here:) The other day I was just checking how serious this site is (by trying to edit an article), and it is the most intelligent insight so far into how to change education for the better (since I couldn't edit anything without following very rigid, extremely well-thought procedure, which does confirm that one has to be very intelligent to change or add content here). So, I will advance in academia the fact that Wikipedia should be used in academic settings freely and without shame:) Does help to skip a trip to the library, or a long read of numerous books. Libraries should stay though, since they have books, and we all love them, or at least should. Queen Ekaterina http://porcupineswisdom.blogspot.co.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netchitailova (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 October 2017.
Discuss?
Hi! Why don't you discuss before creating pages? Just asking, maybe again. (2018 Pakistan Super League squads) M. Billoo 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- What is there to discuss? Where should I discuss? With whom should I discuss? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe on Talk:Pakistan Super League, you can message there notifying other editors at PSL page, they can suggest too. The squad is of course not complete. Why you became like unknown? M. Billoo 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will try o notify on that page every time I create an article. Will that work for you? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- We are already notified after page's creation, that's why I am message you after you create a page, or how do I know? If I, or anyone creates a new page for PSL, you will be notified too. I said try to have some discussion before creating page. Also, wait till enough information to share. I saw, you added Multan Sultans' players in the page, and added only headings for rest of the teams. Will that work?? M. Billoo 00:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am still working on it. I can use all the help. I will try to discuss, but I see not much discussion going on that page. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! I haven't seen any update on that page yet. For your this edit, I already mentioned above that 'Karachi Kings in 2017' and similar pages were made active in February 2017. If you are going to made those right now, again it is too early.
- Also, your this edit has been undone, due to you used an old reference there, a new reference was already given above.
- Sorry I didn't understand your "I see not much discussion going on that page". You can start a conversation there, and can notify other users for help or suggestions. Or if you think you don't want to message there, you can notify others here on your talk page too by leaving a message. M. Billoo 08:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Dude, Please stop trolling me! Did you discuss before reverting my edits? Next time try leading by example. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am still working on it. I can use all the help. I will try to discuss, but I see not much discussion going on that page. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- We are already notified after page's creation, that's why I am message you after you create a page, or how do I know? If I, or anyone creates a new page for PSL, you will be notified too. I said try to have some discussion before creating page. Also, wait till enough information to share. I saw, you added Multan Sultans' players in the page, and added only headings for rest of the teams. Will that work?? M. Billoo 00:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will try o notify on that page every time I create an article. Will that work for you? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe on Talk:Pakistan Super League, you can message there notifying other editors at PSL page, they can suggest too. The squad is of course not complete. Why you became like unknown? M. Billoo 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Category:Lame userpages has been nominated for discussion
Category:Lame userpages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The article Peshawar Zalmi in 2018 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
TOOSOON - season is months away from starting yet. Redo it in three or four months time - perhaps when we know it will occur and who the players might be
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
September 2018
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Dorothy A. Hogg. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Jonathan Teaver New Page
Hi I am the author of Jonathan Teaver wiki page and I need some info on what is missing. Is is a problem with the references or the notability of the person involved. Thanks, FWC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwc (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fwc I answered on your talk page, but also seeWP:V and WP:RS. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
AfD Review Request
Hi,
I was involved in the Chris Powell AfD Discussion and I disagree with your viewpoint as regards consensus.
I was hoping both that you could explain your reasoning (given the controversial state of the AfD, giving your reasoning when you closed the AfD would hve been appreciated)
Also as a controversial case I feel it should have been closed by an admin - but in any case I believe consensus was for redirect, and certainly not all the way past NC to Keep.
As well as your explanation I'm hoping that you could undo your close - please let me know either way asap.
Cheers,
Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for Chris Powell (politician)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chris Powell (politician). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to WP:STiki!
Hello, TheGreatWikiLord, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 08:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Orphan Wiki 08:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
relists
Hello, please do not relist discussions with only delete comments like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute since an admin can and may close them as delete. Also, regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teni entertainer, per WP:RELIST, Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template
Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Galobtter, noted. Thanks. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walk-in clinic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Swarm talk 09:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)TheGreatWikiLord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There was no attack, I just apointed out that the admin in question was unable to respect a difference of opinion. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, it was an unambiguous personal attack. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:57, 10 November 2018 (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.
TheGreatWikiLord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please explain how was it an attack? What did I say that was worse than what the admin in question said? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
What matters in an unblock request is what you did, not what others did. What you did was clearly a personal attack. If you don't understand how it was, you need to reevaluate your perceptions. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (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.
Anti-vandalism
First, there is a significant difference between reverts of changes like [1] (which is clearly a revert of a good-faith edit), and changes like [2] or [3]. You could probably call them test edits, but not "good-faith" attempts at contributing.
Second, comments like It is obvious that you are too high on your administrator horse to see that I decided to take a softer approach.
are always a bad idea; I'm not sure it reaches the level of a blockable personal attack but it's always a bad idea to test that boundary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- PS: you'll get a heck of a lot farther here if you change your username, at WP:CHU. Probably to something that doesn't include the words "Great", "Wiki", or "Lord". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:power~enwiki care to explain, What prevents someone with the word "wiki" in his name from going farther ? And why should a non offensive name such as his be a subject to likeness of others ? I mean, do you support or oppose a person based on his user name or his proposal/edithistory ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am simply describing things as I see that they are; IIRC there's a WP:UAA/BOT filter for users with "Wiki" in their username because they are so often troublesome. Words like "Great" and "Lord" that proclaim a user's own awesomeness are also a common sign of concern. Perhaps the wider community will give you a more edifying response if you still disagree. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think your bot logic is unfounded, I have seen many users with such name, For example these wonderful folks I interacted with recently have that name, Yo User:Wikiemirati User:WikiHannibal, do you guys face problems with username as has been described above ? I don't believe you do, but still would like to know from you. Even Power~enwiki name has the word wiki in it. :D
- regarding your disagreement with words like "Great" and "Lord" and "users awesomeness" are all subjective and cannot be imposed on others, folks who imposed such things onto others are despised. Plus I don't think that a name having "Great" and "Lord" is any better or worse than another name having "Power" or "wiki". Now I am sure I have seen lot more awesome names and one of my all time favourite "Awesomeness proclaiming user name" is User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and he was an admin. true that. So again, I am not sure how such names are of any concern.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your username's fine. I personally think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Stuyvesant&diff=prev&oldid=865074687 is a prime example of a good faith edit. A test edit is just that: a good faith "can I really do this?!" edit. And saying an admin is "on his high horse" isn't blockable, it's not even close to the boundary of blockable. And that, my friends, will likely be my comment for this year :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Don't misrepresent the situation, Chase me, the user was not blocked for saying I'm "on a high horse". That's just silly, obviously no one is ever going to block over that. TGWL requested to be vetted for additional user rights, received a fair, perfectly reasonable assessment of their edits and behavior, and when the results were unfavorable, rejected the results, personally attacked the reviewing administrator (myself, but that's irrelevant), announced their intent to re-apply after 90 days, when the bot wouldn't detect the unfavorable assessment, and subsequently used the negative assessment they had received to justify their personal attacks, and when that didn't work, they cried "admin abuse". The the block was not harsh, it was actually exceedingly lenient. And it was certainly justified, and three reviewing admins agreed. You can't just insult PERM admins because you got declined, that's unacceptable. Good faith criticism in a formal behavioral assessment does not open the window for retaliatory personal attacks. Competence to accept negative feedback without losing your cool is required. Don't request to be vetted for special privileges if you're not going to be able to accept even the slightest criticism. The reality of the situation, Great Wiki Lord, is that you were declined over a minor issue, and your response to that has damaged your prospects for being granted additional privileges far more than that issue ever would have. Swarm talk 21:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Swarm "Good faith criticism in a formal behavioral assessment does not open the window for retaliatory personal attacks" works both ways. If you see my talk page you can see evidence of other people giving "good faith criticism," and I have always accepted it. You can't talk about "good faith criticism" and at the same time block me for giving you "good faith feedback." Is there anything wrong with applying again in 90 days (Even though I was implying that I was walking away from the disagreement.) I wasn't gaming the system, I just wanted a neutral re-evaluation. I don't care if you are a PERM admin or whatever, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else. First You have not pointed out what exactly you considered to have met the criteria for a personal attack. and second Even if it was a personal attack, you went against this. Saying stuff like "Swarm is one of the few active admins who I think doesn't deserve to have his mop privileges reviewed" is hardly an independent evaluation and more likely to be analogous to professional courtesy. Neither you, nor "three reviewing admins" answered exactly what was interpreted as an attack. AS a dmin aren't you suppose to lead by example, you can't talk about accepting "even the slightest criticism" and yet at the same time block someone for criticizing you, even if the Wikipedia policy advises otherwise. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and power~enwiki, thank you for pointing out that other editors would also interpret my edits as good faith edits. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Don't misrepresent the situation, Chase me, the user was not blocked for saying I'm "on a high horse". That's just silly, obviously no one is ever going to block over that. TGWL requested to be vetted for additional user rights, received a fair, perfectly reasonable assessment of their edits and behavior, and when the results were unfavorable, rejected the results, personally attacked the reviewing administrator (myself, but that's irrelevant), announced their intent to re-apply after 90 days, when the bot wouldn't detect the unfavorable assessment, and subsequently used the negative assessment they had received to justify their personal attacks, and when that didn't work, they cried "admin abuse". The the block was not harsh, it was actually exceedingly lenient. And it was certainly justified, and three reviewing admins agreed. You can't just insult PERM admins because you got declined, that's unacceptable. Good faith criticism in a formal behavioral assessment does not open the window for retaliatory personal attacks. Competence to accept negative feedback without losing your cool is required. Don't request to be vetted for special privileges if you're not going to be able to accept even the slightest criticism. The reality of the situation, Great Wiki Lord, is that you were declined over a minor issue, and your response to that has damaged your prospects for being granted additional privileges far more than that issue ever would have. Swarm talk 21:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your username's fine. I personally think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Stuyvesant&diff=prev&oldid=865074687 is a prime example of a good faith edit. A test edit is just that: a good faith "can I really do this?!" edit. And saying an admin is "on his high horse" isn't blockable, it's not even close to the boundary of blockable. And that, my friends, will likely be my comment for this year :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I am simply describing things as I see that they are; IIRC there's a WP:UAA/BOT filter for users with "Wiki" in their username because they are so often troublesome. Words like "Great" and "Lord" that proclaim a user's own awesomeness are also a common sign of concern. Perhaps the wider community will give you a more edifying response if you still disagree. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:power~enwiki care to explain, What prevents someone with the word "wiki" in his name from going farther ? And why should a non offensive name such as his be a subject to likeness of others ? I mean, do you support or oppose a person based on his user name or his proposal/edithistory ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
(←) You can't really credibly argue that telling someone that their conduct is "unbecoming", that they are "are unable to respect people with differing opinions", that they are "on a high horse", and that they are "immature" are not personal attacks. You were unambiguously attacking me in a personal way. Telling someone that they're wrong due to defects in their character is not "good faith criticism", it's an ad hominem attack. Literally, it's not a matter of interpretation, it's objectively an ad hominem attack. NPA is not some sort of complex, nuanced concept. "Comment on content, not contributors." It's that simple. You can't retroactively argue your way out of that. Demanding to know what "criteria" are satisfied to classify something as a personal attack suggests that you still are unwilling or unable to understand the very simple concept of "don't attack other editors". Nothing at WP:NPA suggests that a user can't be blocked for personal attacks. In fact, it specifically says, " A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." Between an apparent inability to get through to you via communication, and the brazenness of launching straight into personal attacks because an admin who wasn't giving you what you wanted, seemed obvious that you don't understand what is unacceptable conduct here, and that you would likely continue to do it if you were not blocked. And, frankly, rather than making a convincing argument that the block wasn't necessary, you're making it seem like it wasn't effective by being this obstinate. You seriously need to change your approach here if you want to continue editing, this is not a battleground, it's not about winning, it's not about obtaining user rights, it's a serious academic project, civility, competence, effective communication are all required, and poor conduct is only given so much patience. Oh, and for the record user who said I 'don't deserve to have my mop privileges reviewed' was not one of the reviewing admins, nor an admin at all. Swarm talk 00:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Swarm, I think you missed the point and context of these comments. Out of context they can seem like an attack, but look at the context where I used them.
- Unbecoming and unable to respect people with differing opinions are not an attack, but a honest assessment of your response. I very kindly pointed out my reasons for marking those edits as good faith. Other editors have expressed solidarity with assuming good faith for many of those edits. This points out that marking those edits as AGF is something many editors would have done, and goes against "reverting obvious vandalism as good faith edits" comment. As you can see, from the context, these comments are not generic attacks, but my very honest ans fact-based assessment.
- on a high horse When you refer to yourself in the third person and boasting you administratorship as you did when you said "when an administrator points out," I see that being on high horse. Also see above for you lack of humility. You also have the attitue that you are the almighty administrator, and hence cannot do wrong. Regardless, You have already said "the user was not blocked for saying I'm 'on a high horse.'" Either "high horse" did or did not play a role in you blocking me. You can't have it both ways.
- comment of content, not contributors I was commenting on content by pointing out WP:AGF and WP:BITE, until you started questioning my competence and maturity.
- immature if calling immature is considered a personal attack than what are comments like "questionable level of competence...a questionable level of maturity" considered.
- continue using personal attacks If you read the last part of my comments I made it clear that I was walking away. "reapply in 90 days" and "until then" make it clear that I considered that conversation over.
- WP:HAT, I made it clear why I wanted that permission, I want to use WP:Igloo. These are not hats I want to collect, but more like tools that I think I will find helpful.
- you're making it seem like it wasn't effective by being this obstinate. You seriously need to change your approach here if you want to continue editing Are you seriously threatening to block me again? It seems like you are the one who is not getting the point here. Off course, you have the technical privileges to block me, and I can't stop you. But if do block me again because of this, you would have made it very clear that you consider to yourself above the rules.
- argue your way out of that I am not trying to argue out of anything, but trying to highlight that on this particular incident you did indeed abuse your admin privileges. As DBigXray pointed out that I am not the only ones who thinks that this incident is a "good candidate for a wider discussion by community."
As you said this isn't about winning this is about making sure that the rules are consistently applied to everyone. If an incident of suspected abuse occurs, it needs to be pointed out for two reasons. First is to make the user aware of it so they can take better precautions next time, and second is that if there is a pattern it can be easily identified, and the abuser can be dealt with in an appropriate manner. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Swarm arbitration case request
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.
Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.
In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:TheGreatWikiLord as Kevin clarified above the right venues are talk page followed by ANI, the talk page discussion here has happened, if you still feel your block needs to be reviewed by wider community, ANI is the right place. I think this "Block Review" is a good candidate for a wider discussion by community. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, TheGreatWikiLord. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Multan Sultans
Ali Tareen has announced the name of the sixth team as Multan Sultans. Please redirect the page. Human (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- A Simple Human Do you have a reference? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Multan Sultans in 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johan Botha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2020 PSL
Hi! So you have a history of creating pages WP:TOOSOON without any official information. In your recently created page, you cited "a WP:RS [4] Dawn" improperly. The title itself says, "PM Khan has DECIDED to hold entire PSL 2020 in Pakistan: Naeemul Haq". The other reference [5], "“Next season of PSL WOULD take place in Pakistan, instead of Dubai,” said Imran Khan, while addressing the inauguration ceremony of online visa issuance on Thursday." But you wrote, "Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan has ANNOUNCED that the fifth season of the tournament will be held entirely in Pakistan", and that is what WP:UNSOURCED. Understand the difference between Will and Would. Hope it helps, Thanks! M. Billoo 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- M.Billoo2000, If I have made a mistake with Will and Would, please correct it. WP:TOOSOON is your opinion. I have NEVER had any of my pages deleted for WP:TOOSOON in an WP:AFD. If you think they are too soon, please start a discussion. Please do not blank unilaterally. You behavior is approaching WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Again, please discuss any disagreements. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- So you think your decisions are superior and you have alleged me under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I have already said you earlier that I would not like to put any article into Afd. As well as I don't want to edit the article which is unsourced, and of course too soon. Are you even confirmed about the existence of year 2020? Are you predicting something by your own which has nothing to do with the officials as of now? For my behaviours, you can check my edits if I have done something which is a prediction here. Well, leave me or leave the future also, you are putting a wrong sentence on Imran Khan; a sentence which he didn't say. I am no way related to anyone, I am here to contribute with the references, what the references say. Thanks! M. Billoo 15:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have two WP:RSs "PSL 2020 to take place in Pakistan, announces PM Khan"[6] So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- And both of them are defined (and now highlighted) by me above, they do not support what you are trying to say on the new page. M. Billoo 18:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please read the "PSL 2020 to take place in Pakistan, announces PM Khan" the headline 200 times. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- And both of them are defined (and now highlighted) by me above, they do not support what you are trying to say on the new page. M. Billoo 18:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have two WP:RSs "PSL 2020 to take place in Pakistan, announces PM Khan"[6] So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- So you think your decisions are superior and you have alleged me under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I have already said you earlier that I would not like to put any article into Afd. As well as I don't want to edit the article which is unsourced, and of course too soon. Are you even confirmed about the existence of year 2020? Are you predicting something by your own which has nothing to do with the officials as of now? For my behaviours, you can check my edits if I have done something which is a prediction here. Well, leave me or leave the future also, you are putting a wrong sentence on Imran Khan; a sentence which he didn't say. I am no way related to anyone, I am here to contribute with the references, what the references say. Thanks! M. Billoo 15:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, then atleast link the better reference to quote Imran Khan. [7] He assured about next PSL, he didn't even mentioned year 2020, nor even he said "next year's PSL" or "PSL fifth season". I am not against anyone, I just do not agree the creation of this page for now. You are predicting like you are more confirmed about it than him. Are you always right? I could be wrong often. Do you think you are the only to create the PSL related new pages on wikipedia? If you claim to be the Great or Lord, you aren't both. M. Billoo 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)