User talk:Accesscrawl/Archives/Archive 1

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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. Sam Sailor 20:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ankit Arora (cyclist) 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/Ankit Arora (cyclist) 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. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Further to the section above:

1.

2. Calling for updates (26 bytes edits): in a, b, c, d, e, and f you tag with {{

Since a reply is lacking here, I have undone your remaining additions of {{

WP:DRIVEBY that The Mighty Glen

posted above and discontinue the practice.

Point no. 1 above offers you an opportunity to both get to know our

naming conventions and to search for sources. It is a worthwhile exercise, and will be beneficial for arguing the RM you filed at Talk:Rajneesh (permalink). Sam Sailor

09:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, but it would be even better if you try to figure out what to do with

MOS:LISTGAP. Sam Sailor

10:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Page move? Accesscrawl (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Now we have (at least) three different suggestions on the table

• Nimbhi Jodhan
• Nimhi Jodhan, and
• Nimbi Jodha

Which one do you think is best based on your understanding of

WP:NCIN, a guideline? Sam Sailor

11:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nimbi Jodha Accesscrawl (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? Sam Sailor 12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll get back with the reason. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I forgot this one, sorry. So, why should it be Nimbi Jodha? Sam Sailor 07:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking out for genuine reasons to support. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I moved the article to Nimbi Jodha, deprodded it, and added a few references and an infobox. Do you want to follow up? Ask, if you have any questions. Sam Sailor 16:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

thanks sam, I'll get back if i have any query Accesscrawl (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Accesscrawl. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Talk:Rajneesh, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Accesscrawl. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Accesscrawl|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. I believe this edit originated from a request posted on a freelance job website

I have no COI with Rajneesh whatsoever. If any edits feels like COI is possible it is mere coincidence. I have read Rajneesh books many a times and have a impression that the name should be osho. If that comes under COI that it can be a possible case of COI. Otherwise, thanks for visiting my talk page. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This may just be a coincidence, however, may I be blunt and ask if you use Upwork? There has been a job on this platform to request a move discussion for this article. This was at just about the same time as the discussion was initiated. There are some additional examples. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: sir i do not use upwork. I have initiated the talk discussion on my own. I'm a Rajneesh Reader and believe that name should be osho. Can you send me the link of the job post? Accesscrawl (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I won't be promoting Upwork. The job has incidentally just been re-posted within the hour. It should be easy to find. If you are a reader of Osho you may also have a conflict, depending on your involvement. Please bear this in mind and familiarise yourself with the COI policy and

WP:NPOV. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk

09:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: I created move requested on 11 June. When was the first job post requested? I read many authors, including osho,does that make me COI to all? Don't give me unwanted suggestions. Please stick to your primary allegations. Prove COI if you can. Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Accesscrawl, can you explain the source for this information you added to the Ankit Arora (cyclist) article? I didn't find it in any listed references on the page and, given the COI concern expressed above, I have to ask if you created the article on the subject's behalf? Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Respond @Abecedare: ,most importantly the COI isn't proven yet for Rajneesh. It was just a mere allegation. You being an administrator doesn't suit to draw conclusions. The information I've found for ankit arora is from a personal blog. Now personal blogs doesn't applies as a reliable source that is well known to me. However, few other sources mentions about his job at the BPO, etc and the personal ones draws the corollary. Moreover, this kind of in-depth info is rarely found on well known media. Now, if you say that he isn't well known, so the AfD is already live. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Accesscrawl, even if you obtain information from a personal blog you need to cite it so others can assess the source. And where exactly did you get the "Till date have covered 12 states and 6 UTs in 310 days and 14000 kms" bit that you added in this edit (it was falsely ascribed to two newspaper articles; the information is not even on the blog)? Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare:, [23] [24] one more link is marked with it but it is not getting saved when I edit these are two Hindi resources which mention it. Moreover, I don't know why they are deleted. Please be very sure before you allege someone "Falsely". You are an admin, remember that. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Where do they say that? Abecedare (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This info was given in https://m.patrika.com/bikaner-news/welcome-to-bikaner-ankit-which-has-come-out-of-india-tour-on-bicycle-1946447/ but not precise. I got the precise info from social media pages Accesscrawl (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Accesscrawl, the information is in none of the three Hindi newspaper articles you have repeatedly listed. Can you point to where on social media, as you now claim, you obtained the information? Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

[25] this is about 285th day. I can't find for 310th though. But it was there. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That is a closed facebook group, and non-public information, which heightens the COI concerns expressed above. At a minimum, it is clear that you mistakenly/falsely claimed that the information came from the Hindi news-sites both on the article page, and repeatedly in our discussion here. It is hard to assume good faith especially for the latter but I am dropping the issue now. I hope you realize though any repetition is likely to be sanctionable. Abecedare (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The closed group is not public that was not known to me. I had no intention to fulfil the stub. But when sam sailor msged me on my talk page to improve the article I desperately started looking for information. However, I accept the mistake and find myself responsible for creating content with no honorable references. I'll take care that this doesn't happen again. But there is no COI whatsoever. Otherwise, I would have declared it on the page. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: I hope you don't mind if I butt in here and follow up where Abecedare started: Their first question was which source you used in this diff to change the text

The enewsroom.in source does support the text in the previous revision. You replace "journalist for eNews Room ..." with "Genpact ... Arbit ...", but that is not supported by the enewsroom.in source. In Wiki-lingo that is called

@Sam Sailor: I understand that you want me to read wp:xxxx, is that correct? This is what you meant in nutshell? Accesscrawl (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the nutshell was that I find it unlikely that you are a paid editor. The remark about project pages, those that start with the "Wikipedia:" prefix or the shortcut prefix "WP:", was parenthetical. Speaking for myself, not a day goes by without looking something up and learning something new. Sam Sailor 06:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: thanks for trusting me. Even my day doesn't go without checking the wp:xx. I am a beginner and have come a long way by help from seasoned editors and their suggestions. However, jumping to a conclusion doesn't looks great for a seasoned editor, It also makes me lose my morale and trust. Like with no proof Jake Brockman jumped on me with allegations and when his argument were fainting he asked me to read wp:xxx. Similarly as you've mentioned why would someone pay me to create a trivial one line article for ankit arora. I accept my mistakes, but that comes under [citation needed] not COI. Thanks for trusting me. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I can understand how you feel in a situation like this. It is OK that you vent your frustration. Many of us have made mistakes when we started out on Wikipedia, and the stress of other editor's coming to our talk page pointing out our mistakes can be considerable.
Now ... clear your mind from the thought that others did something wrong. Consider it a deposit in the

GF Bank. That frees your mind to evaluate what you did wrong. Perhaps just slow down? Sam Sailor

22:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I'm reading more and more wp:xx and have utterly slowed down. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Felix Starck 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/Felix Starck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Accesscrawl! You created a thread called AfD at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk ) 19:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not make bogus COMMONNAME claims as you did at

I appreciate your research, however I am not convinced that present title is not a common name because mainstream media do refer him as "Swami Nithyananda". I will withdraw my vote if there is good argument against it. Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it's disproven is a good argument against it. Please read

WP:COMMONNAME, carefully. It does not mean "insist on a name you like if it happens to be somewhat common"; it calls for the single most common name to be used, and it is utterly impossible for that to be "Swami Nithyananda". Virtually the only time time it is used in reliable sources about him is mockingly. It doesn't even qualify as "somewhat common" for Nithyananda, except as a "scare-quoted" attack. Further, COMMONNAME does not apply to prefixed titles anyway. If it did, we would have to move the articles of hundreds of thousands of academics and medical professionals to new article names with "Dr." or "Prof." in front of them, and move all nobility and peerage articles to titles with "Sir", "Dame", "Lord", "Baroness", etc., etc., in front of them, except for the minority who are commonly known without them (mostly actors). And all military bios would have to move to include their rank. And all Roman Catholic saints would have to move to titles that prefix "St." on them. But we don't do any of these things; they all just exist as redirects. I find it rather mystifying that you don't already know and understand this, given that you've been here for something like 7 or 8 months.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  09:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 345 18:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: please investigate this user(claiming to be a old editor) prodding articles. Alleging me for COI. Also check if Draft:Ankit Chadha is notable enough or no. Proposed drafting by same userAccesscrawl (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The article

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. 345 18:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Accesscrawl,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Expedition Happiness should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expedition Happiness .

If you're new to the process,

Thanks,

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Accesscrawl, thank you for monitoring the druze page , I've noticed that you had been reverting my edits to the page and your reverts look to be in goodwill.

As a Druze myself with deep knowledge of the faith , I don't see that my edits had been controversial or that the version its being reverted to is more informative or accurate .

Please can we discuss the points you don't want to be removed from the page so we can reach a common ground rather than reverting all my edits.

Please lets discuss changes on talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Druze#Discussing_changes_suggested_to_introduction

Thank you and looking forward to hear from you. « Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 05:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Continue discussion on talk page, until you achieve consensus for your edits per

WP:BRD. Accesscrawl (talk

) 05:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, can you please add references to 2015 in Indian television? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And 2017 in Indian television. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I moved the Pankaj Chaturvedi back to User:Amyers98/sandbox - it's a student's article draft that wasn't ready for mainspace. I believe this is a well-intentioned attempt to write an article, but one that missed the mark on tone. I intend to work with them to try to fix the tone issues, and sort out the notability issues. To that end, I removed your speedy tag. If you disagree, please feel free to re-tag the page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I also deleted the redirect. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox looks good for now. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mamoudou Gassama 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/Mamoudou Gassama (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. NAH 16:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please respond to my previous two messages? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE, remember? No?Accesscrawl (talk

) 16:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting article, but it's basic manners to respond, as well as a key part of the policies

WP:BURDEN is on you to look at the information's verifiability, as you are the one who added it. However, rather than wikilawyering, can we look at how to make this better? Where did you get your information; can you please add the references? Boleyn (talk

) 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. I'll add the references when I'm offloaded with what I'm doing right now. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

Hello, Accesscrawl. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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

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)

Hello, Accesscrawl. 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

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)

Hello, Accesscrawl,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Scope creep and it's nice to meet you:-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on

If you have any questions, leave a comment here and ping me.

scope_creep^Talk 23:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I see you recently deleted the page on Shadow Yoga, which I wrote years ago with some hope that others would fill in details I didn't have time to add back then. I appreciate you need to pull out weeds and keep the garden here neat and tidy, so to speak, but I'm a bit confused why something like Chair Yoga is kept but Shadow Yoga is not. I'd be happy to keep working on the page if you are able to bring it back. Wspr81 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:REFUND. As this article already passes it.Accesscrawl (talk

) 04:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What Ivan really needed to say is that he proposed a sanction against you. Please go to the thread and comment before this sanction is placed without hearing your side of the story. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Kunal Kamra.

I'm honestly really surprised that this was deleted at AfD last time it was in the new page queue.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello you removed my eduts to battlefield archaeology. I'm actually part of the Ministry of Cultures team working on improving our digital outreach at Grand Sites Archaeologiques. I may not have added the citation to the text but it is taken from our website which is a report of battefield archaeology from WWI, would you please be able to replace the text you removed and i will add the citation. Thank you

Archeonationale (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC) ---- Anastasia from GrandSitesArcheologiques

@

WP:CITE. Sources are necessary to add. If you are closely associated with the subject then you would also like to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Accesscrawl (talk

) 13:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Accesscrawl. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi I need to add a few changes for

1. He participated in the reality show, Bigg Boss in 2009.^[1] This goes at the top after it says about Kamaal Rashid Khan is an Indian film actor, producer and writer.[3]
2. later at the botton I want to add: Template:Bigg Boss 3 with {{}} and Category:Bigg Boss contestants.
3. And a section called:

We need a table like this

==Television==

this should go under filmography.

Please put

at the bottom and also add Category:Bigg Boss contestants as well.

Thanks--DannyS712 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@NoraFatehi231: Talk page is better place to Request edits. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I did but know one is anwering me go and check. Please can you go and do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoraFatehi231 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You recently reverted two of my revisions on George Armstrong Custer's page (ids 881115846 and 881110353), claiming that no sources were provided. This is inaccurate. A source was provided for 881115846, in which I added a missing entry to the table listing Custer's military ranks. The missing rank was Custer's final appointment to brevet major general, which occurred in 1868. The provided source was a National Parks Service webpage that contains a complete list of Custer's promotions, including photos of their official certificates. Unless you have a good argument for why this is not an adequate source, I am adding this back to the page. I can also cite multiple biographies that mention this promotion.

For revision 881110353, I removed a mention of Gail Kelly-Custer's book, who claims to be a direct descendant of Custer and a Cheyenne woman named Monaseetah. The article states as fact that Gail is indeed a descendant, despite her book providing no proof of that. Her book is not a scholarly work, and I believe falls under Wikipedia's definition of a questionable source. I, too, could write a book claiming to be a direct Custer descendent, but that would not make it true. The section regarding Custer's relationship with Monaseetah needs further elaboration in general, but Gail's book should not be given the credence it is now. Twcus (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:George Armstrong Custer. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I added an acquisition detail on GSS Infotech page. I referenced it to one of many press reports. You have deleted it.Could you pl tell me the reason?

WikiKavita (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Because you were removing sourced content which you thought was "outdated".[26] You can still update the content but not remove older details. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Accesscrawl. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2019-05-25. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I was informed that my edit on Hallasan National Park was reverted by you. I edited the number of national parks in South Korea to 22 (the old number in the page is 20 and it is out of date. In the website of Korea National Park Service, they state that "The organization manages 21 of the 22 national parks in Korea, as only the Hallasan National Park is managed by Jeju Special Self-Governing Province since it’s located in an island." (http://english.knps.or.kr/AboutUs/NationalParks/Default.aspx?MenuNum=6&Submenu=NationalParks) Even in Wiki page of "List of national parks of South Korea", it is also writen that: "As of 2016, there are 22 national parks in South Korea; the parks, with the exception of Hallasan National Park, are managed by the Korea National Park Service, established in 1987.[2] The Authority operates its own police force, and since 1998 has been under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment. It was previously under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Construction." So if you determined to reverted my edit in this number, please give me an explanation. Thanks Quy Nhơn Bình Định (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quy Nhơn Bình Định, It is my bad. At first instance i saw the number changed from 20 to 22, but no new reference was added. Hence, i thought that it is

WP:ORIGINAL. But when I actually opened the rs, it says that it 22. Mea Culpa! Accesscrawl (talk

) 03:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback on editing and advertising. I would really appreciate it if you have communicated with me first, before taking the action to undo everything. Yesterday night, I have posted the following message:

"Accesscrawl - the link to DeviantArt is temporary. After 82 hours as of now, it will be replaced by an original picture. Otherwise, you could kindly confirm me now."

  If I do need to remove the links now, I will. It would be very kindly appreciated if I could be confirmed as soon as possible.

Thanks, Harry Princeton Harry Princeton (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually,

I got the point. Thank you for your msg.Accesscrawl (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Accesscrawl. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2020-03-09. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for two days. A content dispute is not vandalism. Horribly performed edits which break formatting are incompetence, not vandalism. Please report edit warring to

Attention:

Administrator intervention against vandalism is only intended for reports of recent obvious vandalism or obvious spam. Disruptive editing of any other type, such as edit warring or sock puppetry, should be reported elsewhere:

Edit warring: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Other types of disruptive editing: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

thank you! KillerChihuahua 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Accesscrawl! I am sure you made a mistake reverting my changes in this article. If you would carefully check the difference between the old and my versions, you would see that I removed wordings "court office" and "district office", which describe wrongly an essence of the "stolnik" COURT TITLE. The reason of this initial mistake may be bad command of English of the person who wrote the article. Providing "a reliable source" has nothing to do with my changes. Making changes in this article, I improved its language, that's it. Natalia Kocharova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia Kocharova (talk • contribs) 13:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you took part in a discussion of the proposed deletion for an article on Frederick Goold in August 2018, and the result at the time was "no consensus". I am just letting you know that I have renominated this article for deletion here.[27]. I am contacting all contributors to that discussion to see if you wish to comment again. In my view, the additional sources provided at the time did nothing to establish notability as definied by WP. I have also proposed two others for deletion for the same reason here [28] and here [29]. Thanks -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See your comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariedegournay

I did indeed put a comment explaining my edit. The explanation is on the Talk page which I edited prior to changing the article. Moreover, the content you restored is marked “citation needed” whereas I made a change supported by a citation from NYT. So you have reverted cited and evidenced material to an uncited statement which is not entirely correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariedegournay (talk • contribs) 01:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You can restore your edits but keep

WP:OR in mind. Accesscrawl (talk

) 13:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You're not a coloring book and you're not supposed to be pandering to the hoi polloi, you're supposed to be an online encyclopedia. When facts are presented, you should fold them into your knowledge base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.43.236 (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See

WP:NOTFORUM. Accesscrawl (talk

) 07:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)