{{User:MiszaBot/config}}

Warning Welcome! If you are here to discuss a reversion I made, please post it on the articles talk page and add {{Ping|Galendalia}} to the question so I am notified. If you ask questions here, I will post a link back to the articles' talk page.

Warning You are welcome to post here, however, do not edit others comments or change the comments (or formatting) in any way because I will undo it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for General WP:CIR and personal attacks.

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 ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very sorry to see this, although I can't help but agree with the rationale - Galendalia, I'm sorry to see you blocked like this, I hope you can take a bit of a break, maybe look at WP:SO, and if you feel ready to contribute positively, request an unblock. Whatever happens, all my best goes to you and yours - wherever you are, stay safe and well. Cheers, -- puddleglum^2.0 19:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You have blocked me for something in which not one single editor involved in any discussion has met any of these requirements as stated in WP:CIR in which you are claiming to have blocked me for.

Violated by numerous editors and even admins:

1. "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake."
2. It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence. In fact for most, it was quite the opposite
3. It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to people about required competence. Rude and uncivil comments are discouraging, and can raise psychological barriers against recognizing one's mistakes or improving one's skills.

Responding to suspected lack of competence - How many times was I called incompetent and told to find something else to do? Count all of them please then you will realize why I have been such an ass to certain people.

1. One must take care when responding to the perceived lack of competence in others. Be mindful of what incompetence is and is not. Incompetence is not lack of knowledge. Responding to competence issues requires care and understanding of the background of a situation. - Again see above statement
2. Repeated mistakes: If a user is making repeated mistakes, verify whether the user has been given any advice or instruction in how to do things correctly. Most users want to contribute productively but simply may not know how to do so. If it appears no-one has explained a problem with their edits, doing so should always be the first step. There are two ways to explain mistakes, (a) direct explanation and (b) showing the better way. In either case, use their talk page to introduce yourself, provide diffs while explaining the problems, and direct them to further readings or to forums such as Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk. In the vast majority of cases, this will be sufficient and no further action will be needed. - Not once did this happen by the administrators or editors in these ANI's did this happen. Instead, it was about me and my "incompetence" in other areas of WP.
3. Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction. - Look at the comments especially from Prax and Pony. Enough said. Notice that this causes people to be on the defensive so yes a lot of times I have been on the defensive based on comments from these editors and admins.

1. Before bringing an issue to the incidents noticeboard or another similar venue, you should have exhausted all reasonable attempts to communicate with the user and correct their behavior. Use their talk page, explain things to them, and demonstrate how to do things correctly. - This was very rarely done and it was only done by the few who have interacted with me on a reasonable level and not attack me. By implementing this "Essay" as a reason for my block is not a policy however an attack to sequester me from constructively editing pages as I have been doing.

I am requesting (since I am blocked) that this go to arbitration since I cannot open the request myself and that no one involved in the discussion, nor the blocking admin review this request.

This is a blatant misuse of Administrative powers in order to silence me from a dispute.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I fully understand my actions about being uncivil towards others and the attacks I have made towards people. My goal is to a) not to respond to editors the way I have been and b) not to let other editors get under my skin. My track record shows outside of conversations, that I am here to build an encyclopedia and have made very many constructive edits in two months time and had rollback rights (removed after previous ANI). I am also willing to participate in discussions by being level headed and not reacting to the comments posted but to work towards a solution. My ANIs have been about the way I converse with others of which is a major fault of mine and I accept the responsibility and apologize for those words. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please bear with me. I am composing this carefully. It may be a few minutes. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. I am in full agreement with with Tony's assessment below. In one of the ANI's, there was a recommendation that you not attempt to return for a year or two. Generally, one can try after six months of constructive editing on other projects. I do not recommend attempting to return before December 10, 2020.

• Review and critique: I cannot for the life of me believe that three days after writing THIS, you are now able to accept criticism and feedback.
• Seriously? ... but none of you admins ever see that. You are all seeking to silence me ...? Again, I can not see you changing your temperament so quickly.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive408#User:LuK3 reported by User:Galendalia (Result: no violation) You reported LuK3, a recent changes patroller for reverting vandalism? We all make mistakes, I don't see where this one was addressed. But the biggest problem has been in your responses.
• At the very least, once you have been unblocked, you will need to agree to stay away from other user's user pages. And why in the world would you do this?
• I won't go in-depth into the general competence issues brought up in this thread. Opening a SPI that was deleted? Opening multiple RfC's when people disagree with you? I think you will need to agree to stay away from WP:DRN once you are unblocked. Gah. You promised to stay in your own lane on May 27th. You need to seriously contemplate how you have proceeded here-to-fore.
• You will need to continue to not host at the TeaHouse.
• I have not assessed your WP:CVU work. That is an area where it is very easy to make mistakes, It is vital that one respond with quiet dignity, humility, and grace when the inevitable error is brought to one's attention. We all make mistakes.

Summary. Though well intentioned, you are overly intense and aggressive, and unable to accept constructive criticism. You are potentially a good user, but you need to grow, and that will take time. It is recommended that, before requesting unblocking, you edit constructively on other projects for at least six months. At least a year would be better. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• I guess it’s worth mentioning that I wrote WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE a few nights ago after dealing with all of the above to discuss our approach to these situations. If I had written it sooner that would have been the block rationale, but I still think it’s a fit. What we have in this situation is someone who fundamentally doesn’t get how Wikipedia operates. Their interactions with others as well as general competence issues (which they have not addressed satisfactorily either here or above, despite their claims) make them have a personality that just isn’t suited for a collaborative project. Feedback is met with angry attacks, and when they try to address the substance of the issue, they don’t actually address the concerns at all or show a fundamental misunderstanding of policy (especially on the COI issue.)
  The issue here is that we have an editor who is here in good faith to build the encyclopedia, but who for several reasons just isn’t a fit for what we expect from Wikipedians in terms of behaviour. Good faith isn’t enough to override these concerns: we need evidence that you’ve somehow changed your approach to how you’d interact with others fundamentally in the last few days. Everything you’ve done since that block has indicated you haven’t. In the light of everything else you’ve written, this unblock request looks like lipservice: saying the right things without sincerity. Actions speak louder than the words of an appeal, and I see no reason right now to think you’ve changed the way you’ll act on this project since I’ve blocked you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ANI's? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Permalinks to ANI's. Special:permalink/961655728#Galendalia, again and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Editor removing blocked users' userboxen to tidy a project list. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you for the feedback. I guess it would be safe to say you have not previously seen my comments in another thread on my talk page, so I will address your concerns here:

*I have not touched DRN since then except to remove my name as a volunteer and the same with the Teahouse.

*For the archiving as I explained I was not paying attention and typed yes to add it with the Welcome template. This was not even addressed until Tony listed it above. I have apologized for it and stated I need to pay attention to it. This was a new script I found on Wikipedia and I put “yes” into the “create auto archive” box.

*The G11 - As I stated when pages are pulled up I automatically send CSD especially if there is email and such involved. There was something I read that stated along the lines not calling attention to it but let the admins know so yes I sent a CSD based on that criteria to get an admins attention in the fastest but most discrete way possible. What I was upset with was another user paraphrasing everything that was just told to me and then ending it with “you are on very thin ice.” To my knowledge that person is not an admin which can be construed as a threat.

*COI issues - As I have stated the user had 1/2 of the template up so I finished it for them so it looked right because the template doesn’t say what the conflict is unless you add the pages which is what I’m allowed to do (again as stated). The previous ANI was about me removing user boxes of which I have not done since. The other COI didn’t have the box but just a statement which didn’t link to the articles themselves as they are a paid editor. Again, the policies state any user is allowed to do this. The problem I see here is that we have two different policies for the same thing.

*CVU work. I think out of the couple hundred (maybe a thousand or so) two have been reversed.

*I also understand why you are bringing up the previous ANI, everything was explained and I have not broken any of my promises from that ANI.

As I’ve already stated it is my interactions with people that I deserved this block and I have, explained above with this unblock request, what I will be doing to address this on my end. You stated I need to work on editing another project. I know of none others than the infamous Wikipedia. No one has addressed my concerns in all of this (as in Galendalia I see your point....”, however, they are quick to pass judgement on me. Yes some people have expressed clarification and proper guidance but others have never had an interaction with me about anything and they continue to add to the pile of stuff against me in ANI which is not aligned with the goals of the project. Right now while I wait I’ve had plenty of time to think which is how I came up with my resolve about approaching others in conversation.

Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 04:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I saw it. Please stop. You really need to stop debating with people. The essence of the unblock decline is in bold. Feel free to request another unblock if you think I erred in declining. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: - While I appreciate your response and decline, 1/2 of the block is because of me doing things against policy, being called incompetent, and many other things. I’m actually reading through all sorts of essays and policies now about blocking and reasons and trying to figure out why I was slapped with an indef for my first block when I see other users getting a lot less for the same things. I am not debating, I am pointing out the facts that once again are being dismissed. I have accepted the part of my words and attacks and have agreed to stop them. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate}

See WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, which describes this situation. Like I said, if I had written it before I blocked you, that’d be the block reason. On the competence points: you still have the G11 and COI points wrong, and policy does not say what you think it says there. You are simply not allowed to edit another user page except in exceptional circumstances. COI not being one. No one is ever forced to use that template as a declaration either. As to the G11, nothing in the relevant policy or the policy its based on remotely suggest using CSD as a way of requesting suppression, and suppression would have been declined anyway in this case as the individual appears to know enough about Wikipedia to be able to make the conscious choice of making their email public. That you don’t have the judgement to understand that is also a competence issue. You’re very likely to have your talk page access revoked soon if you keep posting essays and pinging people, which also goes to my point about overall compatibility. This block is not about good faith or learning, it’s about the issues you have with this project and the disruption that appears sure to resume if you were unblocked because of the compatibility issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: - I already apologized for the mistake on the CSD. As far as the COI WP:COI states a couple of times in various subsections in part “Note that other editors may add this template for you.” It is stated right there on the page. How can you block someone based on an essay and not a policy? This essay is your POV and I think to use that essay (or any essay) and suppressing me on my talk page is egregious to say the least. You are also continuing down the path of insulting me and making personal attacks by repeatedly stating I’m “incompetent.” I have asked you before to stop with that comment and you have failed to cease calling me incompetent. The above are not essays. They are answers to the questions/statements that were made by the declining administrator. I have also asked questions which have not been answered and I understand there are a lot of things going on in Wikipedia Land so I wait on a response. I also find it “weirdly funny” that when I post something as above for my unblock request or immediately above on my response, you chime right in before any other admin can do anything and you keep saying my talk page will be restricted from me editing it. I’m seeing this as harassment from you, an administrator none the less. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 11:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fairly normal for the blocking admin to weigh in on such things. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I feel, based on the conversations, this was more punitive than preventative. I am aware of what I did and how it hurt others and I have made the statement previously that I will be and remain calm and not attack others during disputes. It is also unfair to me that I got an indefinite when other users got time based which is why I feel this punitive. I stand by my resolution of not attacking others. Also upon further reading of policies and essays the blocking administrator should not be taking part of the unblock request unless consulted by the unblocking reviewer so I kindly ask that Tony not post anything in response to this request. Thank you. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 23:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I truly feel really bad for you, but this unblock request and another rambling paragraph continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding. I've been keeping my eyes on this situation for a while now, and I've read all the ani's and the archives. I can tell you have a lot of energy and want to contribute and do good. But you are not mature enough yet. Don't take this as insult, or a setback, but rather a passive event. Because I understand, I was like you at a time, where I typed out a long, dumb paragraph about how I was fed up with this site, and quit. Then I came back several months later, having grown up, changed my way of thinking and matured. I think you should do the same. Take a break from this site, stop thinking about it for a while, and continue on with your life, grow, and come back in 6+ months, and find an area you like+ silently work on it. This website is clearly causing you more stress than you should have, so it's best to just leave it behind for now. To end this cycle, I'm going to revoke talk page access so you can more easily disengage yourself and do something else. I think you will be able to make a return on this account, just not now. And please don't become a jaded, edgy sockmaster- they're just sad and annoying. Good luck, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 01:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

I was going to make a statement during the previous unblock request recommending to take a wikibreak until sometime in August and I still believe that a change a behaviour within a few days of a block will cause suspicion. I would say that an idea of how you'd contribute could possibly help this request's possibility of succeeding, though I will admit that I haven't watched any other series of unblock requests yet. Username⁶⁸⁹² 23:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892: thank you for the advice, much appreciated! Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 00:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This really is not moving in the right direction for an unblock request. What I'm seeing here is lip service being paid to the concerns expressed, unfortunately even that lip service is betrayed by your belief that your understanding and interpretation of the rules is always correct, or somehow superior to experienced editors and administrators of many years experience. There's always, from my experience, an excuse or a 'but...' somewhere in everything we've discussed with you. The unblock policy (which some of us around here have helped write, so we know very well indeed) says the following...

When you appeal, other editors – most of whom probably have no involvement in the matter – will review your editing history, which has been logged, as well as the reason for the block and the history leading up to it. Editors may leave comments on your talk page regarding your appeal.

Usually, if it's a clear cut case, any uninvolved (independent) administrator will make a decision. The blocking administrator may be consulted for their comments on your request (this is a common courtesy). The process can take hours or a few days; for major discussions sometimes it can take a week or more.

Administrators will carefully avoid blocking and unblocking fights, which are a serious breach of administrator policy. For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached.

This means your unblock request goes into the unblock category, and administrators will review that category to see who is requesting an unblock, we do this to monitor what is happening with our own blocks as well as to provide the 'uninvolved' service needed for unblock requests to function. This works best when the blocking administrator is fully discharging the requirements of administrator accountability by explaining their rationale for blocking in detail. Where it says 'the blocking administrator may be consulted' that's something we expect to happen. We block users for a variety of reasons and in some cases it can be necessary to direct administrators to deleted contributions, filter log entries or behaviour on other projects, but where it says 'may be consulted' it doesn't mean the blocking administrator can only add information if the reviewing administrator asks for it. The blocking administrator technically 'owns' the block and has to justify it, which they can do at any time.

You'll also now notice that the final part of this section of the unblocking policy says 'blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict' this again requires the blocking administrator to justify their actions and discharge their duty under administrator accountability. It is necessary for the reviewing administrator to understand what may and may not lead to a source of conflict and to ascertain how consensus may be achieved, what that consensus is likely to be, and any other relevant information about ensuring we do not end up with a wheel warring situation.

You will need, in order to build a consensus for your own unblock, prove not just to the reviewing administrator, but to Tony, Primefac and Deep Fried Okra, as the blocking administrator and two reviewing administrators, why you can be safely unblocked and build a consensus amongst at least those three administrators that you can be unblocked, additionally there are others who are not party to the block/unblock discussion, such as myself, who will need to be persuaded as part of the consensus building process.

I'm not going to say precisely what you'll need to do in order to become unblocked, but I would expect you'll need to be considerably more persuasive and in more detail, beyond 'I did wrong and now I won't'. I do think, unfortunately, you're not suited to editing. I don't know if you think you're more intelligent than us, whether you think we're children or if you have some other superiority complex, but what I'm frequently seeing is an attitude of 'I've read this, interpreted it my way, you're all wrong' followed by 'you've told me I'm wrong BUT I'm only wrong because you've not explained it so I'm not really wrong' which becomes very tiring. It's just an attitude thing, telling Tony his comments are unwanted is indicative of the issue, most people when they're blocked by such a long standing administrator and functionary like Tony is to beg them for advice and help, not tell them they're unwanted (by means of a poor understanding of a policy).

Anyway, that's my perspective on things. I was going to send some of this to you in response to your e-mail, more of this I've added specifically here.
-- Nick (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Thank you for the enlightening message. It’s not an how I interpreted it in all cases, it’s the fact that Wikipedia has conflicting policies and the admins get to pick and choose which ones they want to enforce. I’ve pointed that out numerous times and have been repeatedly told I’m wrong whilst it’s hard to be wrong when it is stated in black and white on the page. In fact, if anything, it makes us both correct. I also have not seen anything that says a user can be blocked/banned on an essay especially with the disclaimer at the top that says this is not a policy and does not reflect the consensus of the community. This is why I stated I did not want Tony’s comments because he is blocking me on an essay and then the second time freely admits if he had written it prior to this issue then that would be the reason. The unblocking supplement is also confusing and can be a point of contention as in one paragraph it states it will be reviewed by an administrator other than the one who blocked you, followed by they will review my reasons against current policies and what I have stated I will do, then followed by if they need more information they will contact the blocking admin for more information then followed by a mini discussion may happen in which the blocking admin can make comments. I feel this can be more developed into one paragraph that has more cohesion to it. I apologize that you feel I’m also not here to edit. I’ve done a lot of editing and other good things. The problem I have is with conduct in which I personally attack people. If I remain blocked I can’t prove that I’ll carry that promise with me. I am not superior or anything like that, however, I do have the right to explain how I see things as a point of discussion as everyone in the world sees things differently and interprets everything differently as well. Now the information you quoted above I have not seen until now when I went to appealing a block and found a link to the page you are quoting from which has different information on it than what is on the page it is linked from. It even states on the linked to page that a block is to be used as a warning and I got the fact of the policy I broke. I’ve admitted to it and I can’t prove it while I’m blocked. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 00:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but Moneytrees is right. Come back in a couple of months and you'll be fine. In the mean time have a safe life. See you in a few, Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reviewing admin may unblock w/o discussion with me at their discretion. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: TonyBallioni was the blocking admin? ——Serial ^# 07:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you look higher, there is reference to achieving consensus among declining admins. Seeking my approval is not needed. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:USPS Official Corporate Signature.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:USPS Official Corporate Signature.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

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. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is requesting unblock at https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31707

I carry his request over for perusal. There are many admins who declined.

I have spent the past two weeks reviewing my disgusting behavior on Wikipedia and coming to the conclusion that I mistreated people who did not, and should not, have been mistreated when they were being helpful and pointing me in the right direction. Going forward, I will treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of how they treat me so I do not get blocked again. I will also stick to CVU and editing articles without gI do see them potentially becoming a productive and collaborative editor.. oing to other places or venues that are outside my range of knowledge (whether policy or otherwise).

Accept? Decline? Carry to AN? Tell 'em to wait? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees, AntiCompositeNumber, TonyBallioni, and Primefac: all the admins I saw. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look very hard, did you. Nick (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not an administrator. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Deepfriedokra, I’m generally on a wiki break right now, but saw the ping when I was on the site as a reader. My general thought is that per everything above, this should wait six months to appeal. That being said, if you or any other admin feels differently there’s no need to further contact me or have it go to AN.
  In those circumstances I’d prefer an appeal be made on-wiki and an unblock occur here rather than in UTRS. That being said, my gut says it’s best to tell them no and to come back in 6 months for an appeal (with the explicit understanding that it is not automatic unblock in that time frame.) Also, I think you declined above, so probably best to let another admin handle UTRS if you agree with my thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Sorry Nick. THought I had you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: I'm neutral. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I favor unblocking as user seems more composed than at the time of their block. Thoughts? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue that led to the block was that we’d consistently get promises of change, and then we’d have disruption in other areas or again. Our standard here isn’t whether or not they can make an unblock request without insulting others. The standard is have they actually changed the way they plan on behaving on Wikipedia. The reason I suggest declining is that I do not think a few weeks away is enough for them to change. There’s a reason our standard in these type of situations is usually six months before even considering an appeal: it takes a lot to be indef’d if you’re a known entity. It also takes a similar amount of effort to change. I don’t think that’s the case here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've thought about this for a while and I'm still on the fence. This appeal is blunt, and displays what needs to be heard, but I still feel like there should be more time between the block and the unblock in this case; not 6 months, maybe 2-3 more weeks. I don't doubt Galendalia has good intentions and is in good faith, but I feel like just a little more time away can't hurt. I don't think this should go to AN, I don't feel like much constructive will come of it. I would support restoration of talk page access at the least, though I would recommend refraining from long paragraph rants.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Copying over user's reply to Tony.

  I would like to address Tony’s concern. During my block time I have found areas that I think I can help out better at. Besides CVU, WPCleaner, and other automated tools. I’m looking at Edit requests and assisting those. This includes a promise to not touch user pages but instead inform them on their talk pages. I won’t participate in any major projects unless I’m invited and properly trained. I believe I have an invite for reference checking that I will be looking into.

  --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, user's comportment is better than I expected. I agree with 2-3 more weeks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what Tony said about the value of a longer cooling off period is good. In the two quoted replies above, they go from I will also stick to CVU and editing articles without going to other places or venues that are outside my range of knowledge to I have found areas that I think I can help out better at. Besides CVU, WPCleaner, and other automated tools. I’m looking at Edit requests and assisting those., in 24 hours, which is exactly the kind of overreach that got them in trouble in the first place. It was only three or four weeks ago that they were telling an admin who was trying to help to "go fuck you too" on my talk page. And as Tony Ballioni says further above in one of the interminable unblock requests, Their interactions with others as well as general competence issues (which they have not addressed satisfactorily either here or above, despite their claims) make them have a personality that just isn’t suited for a collaborative project. Six months is a good idea here, to allow for some substantive behaviour changes to set in. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a user that intercated with Galendaila, I disagree with @Moneytrees: @Deepfriedokra:, I feel like we should give Galendaila 6 months. My main concerns are these: 1) Maturity, Galendaila "quit" 3 times. (I'm guessing in rage) If we have a editor that quits in rage and comes back, in my opinion is a lack of maturity and decisiveness. 2) Personal attacks, Galendaila attacked multiple edtiors, such as go fuck you too Go to Hell! (Twice) Take me to ani see if I give a fuck. This shows that they aren't ready, and we should keep the block on Galendaila for 6 months. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 03:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to TIMP-I carried over

  Galendalia 2020-07-04 02:16:31 Response to TMIP-I am speaking of the edit requests from items like COI editors and such. I do not feel this is an over reach as I would need to verify what they say using reliable sources. I have done this in the past and zero of them were overturned. These are not any type of Dispute process boards or anything. I would need to dig for the link again but it is part of the master list of working on articles to help the articles expand. There are other lists too under special pages that I would work on slowly. I believe some of them are also linked from the home page under something called Help Out where it does a breakdown of articles needing help in some fashion.

  --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I've interacted with Galendalia. I think there's promise here. I think they're saying a lot of the right things, and I do think they're beginning to understand where the problems were. They're clearly eager to be a contributor, which is good. I would like to find a way to set them up for success. Is there some set of guidelines we can offer here to help put them on the right track? If we can find some structure here that Galendalia can stick to (without wikilawyering it), then fwiw, I'd be supportive of an unblock in the near future. I believe they had a mentor before, but I'm not sure they were really working with that mentor before taking actions in new areas. Waggie (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I remember, Nick Moyes was his mentor. Nick, if you would like to add your thoughts about the status of Galendalia's block, we'd love to hear them. Otherwise, please disregard this and hope you're doing well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Preamble: I appreciate the ping, Tenryuu as, stupidly, I failed to add Galendalia's talk user page to my watchlist, so I missed quite a bit that has been cracking off - I apologise for this. I didn't so much intend to offer to proactively mentor Galendalia, as to offer him a 'port of call' for advice if he ever needed it from me (see this short thread. I am not aware that he tried to contact me for help, either on or off wiki, following issues at the end of May. If I missed an off-wiki message, again I apologise to him, but can't find anything in my Inbox.

2) I'm pleased to find that Waggie and I are on the same page on this, as I also believe there's definitely promise here. But, I have to say, there has been far too much noise around Galendalia's editing since May, and not enough listening and acting on advice that was given by other well-meaning editors. I've spent an hour or two, trying to catch up on past events since he and I last had contact in May, and I frustrated that there's been a mixture of rage, kickbacks and refutation of issues, and not enough being done by Galendalia to listen and address the concerns raised. That might be because I wasn't proactive in offering support - but there's a limit to all the things I can do, and I wish they had come to my talk page and sought advice. I do sense there's he has an appreciation that the community is serious when it says it expects editors to listen, act, and not to repeat the same sorts of errors or attitudes that caused these problems. But I also feel from comments Galendalia has made in the past that taking some time away would be both beneficial to them and to the Project right now. So to that end I would think that any block should remain in effect until at least the end of September. Hopefully, they might want to return with a renewed attitude of collaboration for article editing, and I think then an initial restriction just to mainspace editing would be helpful to everyone. As Galendalia said, maybe in 10 years this will be something he can look back on and chuckle or cringe about, but for now we need to ensure we avoid disruption and don't lose potentially good editors. Their editing has been well-meaning, but sadly their execution and subsequent interactions were not always done as well. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no reason to rush into an unblocking when the user has a history of telling everyone what they want to hear. If they were to return in six months or sooner for one reason or another, they should be limited to the mainspace until they can prove competence. Unfortunately, their comments above lead me to believe that we would revisiting this sooner rather than later. Nihlus 07:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nick Moyes: The appeal on UTRS, https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31707, is still open if we want either to unblock now or restore TPA. User says I failed to @ThatMontrealIP:. I do so now. I, like the apellant, feel confused. I have no objection to unblocking if others feel the same way. I am confused by all the "nick"s @Nick:. Unblock? Decline? Restore TPA? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deepfriedokra: I'd be in favour of hearing from Galendalia to see where discussion involving them directly leads. I am acutely aware previous discussions have involved us being told what we wanted to hear so I say that with a great deal of caution. Restore TPA. Nick (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deepfriedokra, as the admin who revoked it, I’m also ok with tpa being restored. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not an admin so sorry if I'm butting in here. To me, it looks like there is mild consensus to keep the block in place for at least awhile longer. I think the feeling is that if we unblock too soon, there won't be enough time to allow for a successful return. It does look like we're coming together with some ideas for Galendalia to move forward if/when they are unblocked. Given the general feelings above and Galendalia's statements at UTRS (that have been copied here), I think we can safely restore TPA and come back in a month or so and begin the conversation again with this discussion as a starting point. Does that make sense? I hope so. Again, sorry if I'm butting in, just trying to work towards resolution for everyone. I do hope that Galendalia understands what we're trying to accomplish, and that we do want them to ultimately become an editor in good standing. I think we all are ultimately hoping for a successful return and all this can be put in the past. Waggie (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I'm unsure if you're asking me to post at the UTRS page (which I can view OK, but have not used before), or here. I'll start here. Yes, restore TPA, as suggested by both editors above. It would be good to hear from Galendalia now about their thoughts about when they feel would be the most appropriate or sensible time for them to return to simple, constructive editing. (I can post at utrs if you need me to) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support restoring TPA. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
• @AntiCompositeNumber, TonyBallioni, and Primefac: Apologies if I left out anyone. I probably won't be back till Tuesday. Please feel free to proceed without me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk page restored. Prefer appeals be made on-wiki anyway: still very skeptical of unblocking, but let it be public. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for allowing me to post directly back on my talk page. I very much appreciate it. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. I have noticed that a majority are saying restricted to main space editing. That is what I promised with the opening of this appeal on UTRS. I would be using the Community Portal to find articles to work on such as typos spelling wiki links etc (basically I would use WPCleaner since it’s easier to fix articles that way at once). I hope this clears it up for everyone. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 23:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Admins:

I have perused through everything in the last couple of threads. Please feel free to leave me questions, however please leave me space under your question so I may concisely and pointedly answer it. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Galendalia: Bearing in mind some of the issues that have been raised with you which, sadly, were not resolved as quickly and as simply as we might have hoped, and considering your previously-expressed remarks about throwing in the towel, do you think it might actually be a good idea for you to take a few months off, away from Wikipedia, and to return, refreshed sometime in or after the autumn (fall)? If so, why? And if not, why not? Are you agreeable to restricting your edits to improving mainspace articles for an initial period after unblocking, and what would be a sensible timescale for that? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My response: @Nick Moyes: - Thank you for the questions. I feel I am ready to come back. I learned a lot of what is acceptable and what is not. I also learned to accept everything as feedback and not take it as an attack on me (nor attack others). As I previously stated it would be working on articles if you look in the thank you section above. I would also like to return to reverting vandalism as it was something I was trained in but my rollback rights were reverted so I can not use Huggle or other simpler programs. It would be my hope to get that right back as soon as possible when I prove I can be trusted again. (PS: Nick Moyes, can you email me please? I can’t find your email and the site won’t let me email from mobile and my desktop is down ATM. Thanks!) Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:

@Moneytrees:

@Nick:

@Primefac:

@Deepfriedokra: No, I've none. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, acknowledged! Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you all in advance for your questions.

Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 16:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins please feel free to post your questions here. I’m just attempting to keep a format for easier reading for me. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 16:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @TonyBallioni, Deepfriedokra, Nick, Moneytrees, and Primefac: I have had an off-wiki email with Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) and after speaking, should my block be lifted without delay, the following is what him and I came up with the understanding that should I violate these, then I get a ban and shall never be allowed on Wikipedia again. I am hoping for consensus on removing my block.

1. Stick to content creation in Mainspace for the first three months Avoid automated editing tools, except to identify problem edits to be manually fixed. (WPCleaner can be used to identify and fix errors; however if there is a question save the page on to-do list and ask at the tea house for advice without making the edit)

2. Stop work immediately in that area if anyone raises any concern about anything I've done and discuss with them (see next line).

3. Taking a polite, reflective and collaborative approach to all editor interactions

4. Reach out to Nick Moyes to discuss (or another administrator) if I want to move into a new area of work.

5. If I feel I might have done something wrong and want a 2nd opinion/review I must seek out help from an experienced editor or administrator.

6. Not to return to Spoken Wikimedia for nine months after successfully passing the original three month restriction (total of one year).

7. If I see an error on a users page I WILL NOT edit it, however, I will point it out in the users talk page.

8. I will not participate in CVU until the initial three month restriction is removed.

Thank you in advance for whatever you choose to do.

Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Just adding that "...my block be lifted without delay" was not part of that discussion, but is Galendalia's aspiration." Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Correct. Apologies about that. I know we discussed different time frames but my aspiration is as soon as possible. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 20:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state the obvious, anyone can sign up and not have any of the above numbered items that constitute editing restrictions. The fact that you need them points to the problem and why an unblock request is met with some uneasiness and skepticism. Just serve out the block and appeal in 5-6 months.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 21:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good job on #3, taking a polite approach. What about #2 Stop work immediately in that area if anyone raises any concern. This is the seventh section that amounts to a block appeal on this page, consuming lots of editor time. If someone really wanted to unblock you they would have done so by now. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Thank you for the question. First off, please reference the entire statement, not just part of it because that can lead to it being read entirely wrong. The statement reads 2. Stop work immediately in that area if anyone raises any concern about anything I've done and discuss with them (see next line). As far as your question, are you referencing the attempts to get unblocked or are you referencing something else? If it is referencing the block I am working through it based on off wiki conversations and some of the comments above in the sections where admins asked questions. Thank you again. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 21:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely there are some last remaining threads of WP:ROPE that can be given here? Galendalia has addressed the points of their block, stated the areas they'll take part in/avoid and has made it clear that they understand, if unblocked, that this will be their last chance for some time to come. Any agro suffered by the community the first time around obviously won't be repeated; they go back on their word, instant block. They may have embarked on a rather tumultuous learning curve, but they appear to have learned all the same. – ².O.^Boxing 21:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Thank you for your kind words. I feel you are right. The rope is close enough to partially stop my breathing but hasn’t fully cut it off yet 🤣 Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 21:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider ROPE ever to be a good reason to unblock. It’s the single most harmful essay on Wikipedia. Unblocks are cheap is a myth. It is exceptionally hard to reblock someone. So no, I don’t think there’s any rope left. I think the entire essay should be marked historical. I’m not commenting on this unblock request other than to point out that in the past, we’ve received promises and disruption has gone elsewhere. I think Galendalia is incompatible with this project, but if they can convince another admin otherwise, I’m not going to stand in the way of an unblock. Extremely skeptical is an understatement, however. I won’t be adding more comments on this unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings admins: As a side note I was reading WP:Rope and something seemed a little off to me. #1 under ‘Most likely reactions’ states Decline because they believe the editors to be lying. Also even if what the user claimed was true the user won't have a valid defence in the case of Example #2.. I looked at the history and noticed it was changed by an IP editor about a month ago to add on Also even if what the user claimed was true the user won't have a valid defence in the case of Example #2.. I am not sure if that should be in there as it does not make sense. I looked at their edits from last month and they were all about changing the essays particularly one. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.26.51.84). I do not want to change them because 1) I am not familiar enough with policy and 2) I can’t. Thank you! Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 06:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like Tony above, I'm also extremely skeptical of an early unblock. Firstly, the time and patience of experienced editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and this user has already sucked up a frightful amount of that resource. Secondly, Galendalia has managed to quarrel with and assume bad faith of Ponyo of all people[1] — I don't remember ever seeing that before, it's ridiculous. In my opinion there should be at least six months before an unblock request is entertained by the community. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I stand with not unblocking galendalia per my cmt above: (As a user that intercated with Galendaila, I disagree with Moneytrees Deepfriedokra, I feel like we should give Galendaila 6 months. My main concerns are these: 1) Maturity, Galendaila "quit" 3 times. (I'm guessing in rage) If we have a editor that quits in rage and comes back, in my opinion is a lack of maturity and decisiveness. 2) Personal attacks, Galendaila attacked multiple edtiors, such as go fuck you too Go to Hell! (Twice) Take me to ani see if I give a fuck. This shows that they aren't ready, and we should keep the block on Galendaila for 6 months.)

Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni, Bishonen, and The4lines: Thank you for your feedback. It is very much appreciated. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 06:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: @Bishonen, Deepfriedokra, Moneytrees, Nick, Primefac, and TonyBallioni:recent events make the discussion now, perhaps, moot. ——Serial 18:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disappointed and unsurprised in equal measure. Nick (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that this has happened, this discussion should be quickly closed. It may be reopened in 6 months (currently Jan. 27, 2021) with no socking. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not bloody likely. Try Jan 27 2022 now. Nick (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Goddammit man, for real? June 14? Please just take a break for half a year / 2 years and maybe come back if you still care. And please don’t sock. I still have faith in you, but.... come on.Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What is disappointing is that they were socking during the entirety of the most recent discussion above, "Appeal at UTRS 31707". The sock account was opened in Early June, and then continuously used until it was discovered. So while a half dozen admins and a bunch of other good faith users were considering the above, they were knowingly violating the block. I'm sure they will be back to make an unblock request sooner or later, so it's important to note this.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Jesus wept. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ​Just saw this.... ouch Galendalia took a path, a wrong one to say the least. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Saw the second sockpuppet which got blocked and translated into a ban. This is unfortunate and disappointing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a shame as Galendalia clearly seemed to be trying to make good edits, I agree with Moneytrees, please come back in around 1 year and show you really care. I wish you the best. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Intentional socking actions like this make me wonder why I bother to try to support editors who encounter difficulties. Such a waste of everyone's time and talents. Bloody hell, Galendalia. You silly idiot daft ha'p'orth! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This would constitute as gravedancing, and I can see why Nardog would consider calling someone an idiot to be a personal attack. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using the phrase "silly idiot" was not intended as a personal attack for one moment, as explained on my talk page, but am happy to strike and reword, using a more friendly term of frustration at Galendalia's disappointing behaviour. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Galendalia! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Create Article, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.

To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew with Anne drew.

If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!

Thanks – Anne drew

You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]