User talk:Koavf/Archive061

Unfortunately, Peruvian sources from the early 1970s are rarely digitized and are therefore difficult to access. For this reason, historic music from Peru is terribly under-represented on English Wikipedia. That said, I have now added sourcing (including sources taken from the Spanish Wikipedia article here) that demonstrate the importance of these two albums. Rather than eliminating content in these under-represented cultural areas, we should endeavor to expand and improve our coverage of these topics. If you find other Peruvian music articles that are in need of improvement, feel free to ping me and I'll do my best to help. Cheers! Cbl62 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Everything that has sources is important. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you enjoy the song links. Ping me if you find other South American music articles that need improved sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Beneath the Eyrie, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hi there! I noticed your captions on certification tables and wanted to let you know that the RIAA and a lot of other certifying bodies around the world actually certify music based on shipments so it's not accurate to call them "sales certifications", we just drop the "sales" part I've noticed. The footer of the certification table explains what each country's is based off of. 120.17.52.205 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll note for one of the newer ones, I've included streaming units. It seems confusing what these certifications are even "certifying". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The footer notes explain what the symbols next to each figure means and what each certificate is based off. Trying to explain all of the methods in the caption probably makes it more complex than captions are supposed to be. 120.17.52.205 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert in the matter, just going off what i've seen editors like muhandes and ss112 say. (And some more i'm forgetting) 120.17.52.205 (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

For sure. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Koavf. If you are interested, the subcategories of Category:Assassinated government ministers are in need of getting populated. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Could be up my alley. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears that template has two modes, see Template:Album chart#Manual referencing. I'm guessing you were intending to edit the non-manual mode versions of all the possible refs, but edited the manual-mode versions instead.

The non-manual mode versions all don't even use cite templates, they look something like {{#tag:ref|[https://www.billboard.com/artist/{{#invoke:WLink|ansiPercent|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{artist}}}|&|%26}}|space=-}}/chart-history/digital-albums "{{{artist}}} Chart History (Digital Albums)"].{{dead link|date=October 2023}} [[Billboard (magazine)|''Billboard'']]. {{#if:{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate|}}}}}}|{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate}}}}}}. }} {{#if:{{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}| Retrieved {{{access-date|{{{accessdate}}}}}}. }}|name={{#if:{{{refname|}}}|{{{refname}}}|"ac_{{{1|}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} in the later part of the lines. Anomie⚔ 00:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's so helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I checked the link you sent me, and there's nothing at all which suggests your new format is more "accessible." In fact, being right-handed, I tend to look for the conference names on the left first, so moving them to the right actual makes it less accessible to me.

Would you mind explaining why your new format is better than my old one? Tom Danson (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it has a table caption, semantics for rows and columns, and it doesn't abuse rowspans for internal headings. I don't even understand what you mean by it being less accessible: all of these are Web accessibility requirements, which are clearly outlined at

MOS:COLHEAD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 22:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just when you make your changes put the conference column in the left, not the right. The right looks bad and makes no sense. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. It's usually nice to put the scope in the far left, but not necessary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The citation is not complete. It needs: author, article title, and it's useful to include full pages for the article, if it's an article being cited, instead of just one. deisenbe (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If it has those things, sure. Does this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Legerdemain (album), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Hi Koavf! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

<3 :3 <3 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Albums arranged by Billy Blyers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Look Over the Wall, See the Sky, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Category:Albums produced by Alesso has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you didn 't use your edit summary to say where it was discussed? I did look before I reverted. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because I inserted the file in a relevant section. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a good reason given the disclaimer you ignored. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're rambling about and your first edit summary was untrue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Rambling? So no AgF. Maybe I was wrong, but didn't you notice you were reverted about 3 hours ago? I want you to show me where it's in the article, please, so I can find out what I did wrong. It's a reasonable request, especially for an article under discretionary sanctions. If I'm wrong I want to know why. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, you just aren't making sense. Where what is in the article? You keep on using "it" without defining that "it" is. Do you see how that's confusing? The first thing you wrote was "Not discussed in article". What wasn't??? The document itself? The FBI's association of antifa with terrorism? It's not me not assuming good faith if you can't be bothered to write a full sentence... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You added a picture of a pamphlet. I reverted you saying it wasn't discussed in the article. It never occurred to me that you wouldn't realise it was the pamphlet. And the 2nd revert of your post showed that that editor thought it was also. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Forgot, why didn't you ask me that question earlier? Doug Weller talk 17:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What? Now you are asking a question to yourself... We don't have to have the literal piece of media discussed in the text of the article to add media. That isn't a thing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Without first having seen this discussion, I came here to warn you about what seemed a deliberately unhelpful edit summary here: "It _is_ discussed in the article, User:Doug Weller". You couldn't quote a few words from the putative discussion in the article, to help people find it? Of course I now see above that you not only wouldn't explain in the edit summary, but you also won't help Doug find it even when he comes here to ask. Instead, you decide that the "it" you yourself were the first to refer to (5 hours earlier) has become quite unclear, and say "You just aren't making sense. Where what is in the article? You keep on using "it" without defining that "it" is. Do you see how that's confusing?" You're trolling, Justin. One more piece of that, or one more rudeness to a fellow editor, and I'll block you from Antifa (United States). Bishonen | tålk 21:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC).

No I'm not. Go away with your baseless allegation. The more I think about this, the more outrageous it is. Are you even being serious now? What do you purport is "trolling" here? Doug left semi-literate edit summaries that made no sense to me: that's a fact. He even comes here and writes half-formed sentences and writes responses to himself asking himself questions: it's not comprehensible to me. I added a completely valid and germane piece of media to a page. Nothing about that deserves a block. And now I have users coming here writing completely untrue allegations like I'm not assuming good faith (???) or that I'm "trolling" when all I'm doing is adding relevant media and someone else is writing things that I cannot understand. Is this a joke? Also, for what it's worth, I'm not interested in editing that article any more and I'm 100% not trying to reinsert that PDF, so I'm struggling to understand what the purpose is of this threat. If you think I'm rude to Doug, whatever, I think he's being wildly rude to me, but I have no interest in dragging this out or making some complaint to someone else for his anti-social behavior. I gave up on trying to add the media when two users objected and it's been placed in several other relevant articles where no one else had these objections. I sincerely have no clue what is going on here, what Doug is trying to say with his half-formed sentences, or why you are trying to block me from an article that I'm not editing. Thoroughly bizarre. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It's best to use as few adjectives, characterizations or colorful metaphors as possible. Some epistemological lines of inquiry are poorly seen in the community. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The trolling was where the it that you yourself were the first to use had over the course of 5 hours become obscure and you said "You keep on using 'it' without defining that 'it' is". If you don't know where the rudeness is, try "rambling", "you just aren't making sense", "confusing", "you can't be bothered to write a full sentence", which you double down on in your reply to me ("semi-literate", really?). You have been page-blocked from Antifa (United States) for one month. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC).

It was not trolling and you evidently didn't even read what I wrote. Don't post here if you're not going to read what I write. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

vindictive, unnecessary block imposed by an admin abusing his powers. There is no need for this block, it serves no purpose, and I explicitly said that I wasn't even planning on editing the article. This is completely ridiculous on the part of User:Bishonen and is explicitly what Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals says to not do: it does not serve the purposes stated for blocks and in fact, is purely vidinctive abuse. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree that you were rude towards Doug so in that regard the block was correct and I don't think it was vindictive, but much of the problematic comments were on this page with only your problematic edit summary on the Antifa US article being elsewhere(I think) so unless I'm missing something(certainly possible) I'm not certain that a par-block from that article was the best way to address it. However, you say you have no plans to edit that article, so I see no need to remove it. If your plans change, let us know. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: You are not missing anything: I did nothing wrong or disruptive on that article and there is no reason to block me from it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have anything else to add. You can certainly request unblock again to see if someone else is willing to remove the par-block from an article you have no intention of editing. It just seems unnecessary to me. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I appreciate your time and respect your perspective. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Per above. Nothing inappropriate occurred on that page and the block is just to be punitive and it serves no purpose. This is abuse of admin powers and said admin only got involved to escalate things here and keep on antagonizing with false claims. There is no content dispute and the other person involved stopped responding awhile ago, so this is just User:Bishonen being vengeful, in opposition to the purpose for blocks. (Note that if another admin declines, I will just archive this entire talk page).

Accept reason:

Procedural accept: Block has now expired. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• You said "for what it's worth, I'm not interested in editing that article any more", which certainly wasn't a formal undertaking not to edit the article any more, and hardly made my block unnecessary. Because why wouldn't your interest be re-ignited at some (any) point? But I suppose a shorter sitewide block for trolling and personal attacks might have been more logical. I can convert the page block to a 48-hour site block if you prefer, Justin. Bishonen | tålk 09:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC).

I would prefer you to stop posting here, as you make it a point to escalate things and are being rude to me. Stop it. The above comment is actually trolling and being rude and time-wasting. You are not doing anything constructive posting here, but instead just

badgering, harassing, and serially threatening me, without reading what I write. I sincerely doubt that you believe that something constructive is supposed to come from these talk page posts or that you think that blocking me from that page is anything other than punitive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 09:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is respected and appreciated. Thanks kindly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:XRV is pretty much completely dead, so if you want to break the ice a little, I would be glad to post there myself -- I've been an administrator for a few weeks and would appreciate getting a review of the actions I've taken thus far (if anyone is willing to indulge me). If it makes you feel more comfortable about opening a thread there I'd be glad to type somethijng up and post it. jp×g🗯️

23:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if there's any response to the above request and measure if it's worthwhile. I appreciate everyone's feedback here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla@JPxG Note that Koavf rejected the option of a 48 hour block "for trolling and personal attacks". Doug Weller talk 12:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't exactly reject it as much as I ignored it: I didn't even think it was a serious proposal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Weird aside

Response to attacks by Koavf

Koavf wrote that "? Doug left semi-literate edit summaries that made no sense to me: that's a fact. He even comes here and writes half-formed sentences and writes responses to himself asking himself questions: it's not comprehensible to me."

My edit summary was "Not discussed in article, evidently not live as "in the vault". I'm pretty sure I'm not semi-literate. I did assume that Koavf had actually looked at the link in the source before posting, and saw that it clearly says "https://vault.fbi.gov" which suggested to me it wasn't currently on the FBI website. He could have asked me what I meant but didn't. His reinstatement was "It _is_ discussed in the article". User:Objective3000 reverted it and argued on the talk page that the caption added by Koavf, “A 2021 pamphlet developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation correlates antifa symbolism and slogans with domestic terrorism”" was "be highly misleading and rather the opposite of much of the section text." In addition it wasn't "summaries" as I only made one edit summary. I think there's a bit of irony there.

I don't see what was rambling about anything I said, nor do I see where I wrote at least two "half-formed" sentences. I have no idea why I was told I wasn't making any sense. I was also told " We don't have to have the literal piece of media discussed in the text of the article to add media." But not only is that not always accurate, it was the caption he added that was the problem, and that would have needed discussion IMHO.

I admit the awful sin of choosing to add a comment by simply hitting reply to myself rather than editing the whole section. It never occurred to me he would think I was asking myself instead of him and in any case he did respond so he knew I wasn't. I'll leave it to others to judge if I was, as claimed, " being wildly rude" to him. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Doug, I, for one, have no trouble understanding your posts or edit summaries. In fact, I consider your questions about the original edit and your subsequent comments on point, and wish that they had been responded to with the same congeniality and respect. – bradv 18:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv Thanks, much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

See below. I cannot understand him. If you can actually answer those questions, I would love that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

What on Earth is this? I wrote above what the confusion is and you never answered it. Look at what you wrote:

"Rambling? So no AgF." What no AgF? Where is a lack of an assumption of good faith on display? Have you read

WP:AGF

? Does that page say something about how if Person A is unintelligible, therefore Person B is not acting in good faith? Complete nonsense.

"Maybe I was wrong, but didn't you notice you were reverted about 3 hours ago?" I did notice that. Did you notice that I dropped it and moved on? Why are you bringing this up? How does it in any way respond to what I wrote?

"I want you to show me where it's in the article, please" WHAT IS "IT"? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? (And I'm "trolling" when I ask you to define "it" when you bring it up. Completely preposterous.)

"so I can find out what I did wrong" I never wrote that you did anything wrong.

"It's a reasonable request" It isn't because I CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOU.

Etc.

And then you don't actually answer my question above and instead come back a couple of days later to start a new thread on my talk page directed at... Whom? Is this how you communicate in real life? I cannot understand you or why you are acting this way. This is all in addition to the fact that the piece of media I added was removed and there is no actual content dispute anymore. There is nothing to discuss about the article, so what are you trying to accomplish Doug? I'm looking forward to you just ignoring these questions and writing things like "Forgot, why didn't you ask me that question earlier?" (What question?! Where?!) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're having such trouble with this, other than that you may be acting deliberately obtuse. You posted an

WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL and consider if you could have handled things differently. – bradv

19:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

And you wrote this in response to something I wrote to Doug and didn't respond to the comment I actually directed at you. This thread should not exist and is a waste of time on Doug's part. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi i just wanted to let you know the article you're working on has existed for three weeks at Spiritual Cramp (album). 120.17.30.212 (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

So helpful. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I merged them. Thanks for saving me time--very considerate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Neo (Hungarian band) albums has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lucky for You, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cousin (album), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hackney Diamonds, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Life Under the Gun, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page This Stupid World, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Everyone's Crushed, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Record (Boygenius album), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trouble Is a Lonesome Town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interlude.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mauritanian people by period has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you reverted all my recent edits. Pitchfork Media is no longer the name of the website (which is just pitchfork) and not the name of the company that owns the website (which is Conde Nast). The Pitchfork article states “formerly Pitchfork Media”. It is therefore not accurate to refer to Pitchfork as Pitchfork Media. Whotookthatguy (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so why did you link to "Pitchfork" repeatedly? How is that an improvement? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I just changed the already existing links to say Pitchfork instead of Pitchfork Media. The improvement is that it’s the correct name of the website. Whotookthatguy (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You took a functional link and changed it to one that directs readers to a piece of agricultural and gardening equipment. That is not an improvement. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now! I will change the links to accurately link to the "Pitchfork (website)" article. Whotookthatguy (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thumbs up emoji. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Theobegley2013 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Dunh, Dunh, DUNH!!!!!!!!111ONE ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Re Living in a Ghost Town, Oxford does state that criticise is the British English form and criticize the US form. As someone who has lived in the UK for 60 years, I can confirm that is the case. Neilinabbey (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

But https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/criticize ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That page clearly states 'British English, also criticise" and the OED here - https://www.oed.com/dictionary/criticize_v?tab=factsheet#7820897 - clearly states criticise is British English, criticize is US English. Neilinabbey (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also respectfully suggest that as someone who has lived and worked in the UK all his 60 years and works regularly with the OED, I perhaps know UK English better than someone in the US who is seeing what the dictionary says but not necessarily in the context of the English used in the UK. The OED is not the only authority and is sometimes seen as quite idiosyncratic, as it follows certain forms, such as the Oxford comma, that other dictionaries reject and which are widely seen as American and not generally used in British English. The -ize ending for words is another such example, as -ise is the widely used and preferred form, even though both are correct. Kind regards, Neilinabbey (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

See

MOS:RETAIN. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 12:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You are missing the point - the OED accepts BOTH versions of the word. As the Wikipedia MOS also states that consistency should be used within articles (and the rest of this article uses British English) and also states that articles with a tie to a specific country - and a song by a British band is clearly tied to the UK - should use the style of that country, which is criticise. My edits are therefore entirely in keeping with the MOS. Neilinabbey (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Since OED accepts BOTH then "criticize" is British English. Please stop rambling on my talk page and wasting my time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You have already been partially blocked for rudeness - keep talking to people like that and you'll find yourself blocked further.

I am not rambling, I am trying to explain to you that in the UK, despite the fact that criticized is permitted, the more widely accepted and preferred word is criticised. You should show some respect to non-US cultures and learn to discuss disagreements on a more mature way instead of just insulting others in such an unhelpful and juvenile fashion. I'll drop it for now as you have changed the word completely, but any more unnecessary rudeness from you and you'll be reported.Neilinabbey (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Fill my cup, put some liquor in it! Panini! • 🥪 23:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mauritanian actors by century has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mauritanian people by century and occupation has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are you citing WP:OR while removing the awards section? Citations are certainly needed, but there is no suggestion of original research here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Because I don't even know if reliable sources exists for some of these claims. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Careful about 3RR please. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

One of the explicit exemptions at

WP:3RR is for biographies of living persons and that page explicitly says that it applies to the recently deceased as well: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead. I am allowed to "Remov[e]... poorly sourced [material] according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 04:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

For awards that he won and for which he was nominated? No, that's not a 3RR exception under BLP, in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It's completely unsourced material. Please remove it and respond to the posts I made at

WP:BLPN, ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 04:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No. It's not completely unsourced. For example, if you click through to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, sources support the nomination. Of course, citations ideally need to be on the page, but I don't think you are justified in the edit warring. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Citations at a secondary page are not citations at that page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly, though, you and I disagree about what justifies the wholesale removal of an "Awards and nominations" section. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP explicitly states that challenged material should not be readded without inline citations. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 04:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Inline citations need to be added, yes. But I don't get why you believe this was worth challenging in the first place. Or edit warred about it. Or accused the IP of vandalism for restoring the list of awards and nominations. Or forum shopped about it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Because all information needs citations, particularly that which is about biographies of living persons. I also didn't forum shop: I posted to the places I was directed to post to. I typically wouldn't have posted to

WP:BLPN and never have as far as I can recall. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 04:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mazi Melesa Pilip, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see you keep deleting the cover artist's name in the wiki. Is there any valid reason why you're against it? Every album wiki credits the cover artists, especially when it's as elaborate and visually striking as this Alex Horley's. Krisfrosz133 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You did. It clearly shows in the edit history. Krisfrosz133 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I clearly did not.

1. Go to The New Dark Ages
2. Ctrl+F
3. "Alex Horley"
4. I'm proven correct.

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Justin, thanks for your comment. You know, I've always had positive associations with your username. But whoa, have I deserved such an arbitrary lecture? "Please pay more attention to what you are doing"? "Confounding and weird"? This is unfair, at least. As a philosopher, I'm sure you're aware it is. Anyway, out of respect to you and your efforts around here, here are my doubts following your comment.

1. Reference errors? Where have I bombed errors in Aiir (EP)? Thought I improved the refs here, not spoiled. It's there in the diffs. I wouldn't mind you re-entered them.
2. I've got rid of nbsps because for me they always seem out of place in prose. Plus, apparently the Visual Editor removes some of them. I never use them. Don't mind. Don't care.

Other than that, happy holidays! — Kochas 02:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think that "please pay more attention" constituted a lecture. You're telling me that when you look at this rev, you don't see any reference erros? I don't see how that's possible. You can clearly see them, just like how you can clearly see that this article uses list-defined references and then you didn't use that style and instead inserted duplicates of the existing references in the body of the article. It's just very bizarre and sloppy. Nobody's perfect--certainly not me--but this kind of edit is just so weird that I don't understand what motivates it. And non-breaking spaces are made for prose! That's the whole point. It's nice that you've had positive associations with me and I hope you still do, but I also hope you can see why what you did was weird and unhelpful to at least some measure. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Granted, I haven't noticed the errors (still, they had left over after my edit, not that I made them), I just forgot to switch all the leftover original refs, since I'm planning to contribute some more to articles related to the band in question.

The simple answer to all this what you're saying is that I use MediaWiki's VisualEditor. And I never add references manually or in any manual shape or form, including listed refs. I wouldn't be editing articles should I had to put any code-like syntax in the first place! Like I had in the very early days of Wikipedia. That includes the automatically references-generating tool that's available by default for ten years now (from what I've double-checked in the article just now).

So since one can't preview any source-mode references in the VisualEditor, every time I'm editing long-untouched articles I most likely turn the code-made refs, or bare URLs for that matter, into VE-generated refs that everyone could see while they're editing after me. Well, I know raw code referencing is still an acceptable way of inserting refs, but for me, a humanist not a coder, it's ridiculous [put shrugging emoji here].

Anyway, I really appreciate your answer. — Kochas 19:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

For sure, and I also appreciate your answers and perspective. I've hardly touched the VisualEditor, so whenever I hear about it, it's bewildering to me. Thanks for all you do here and for your feedback. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A strong life-sparing suggestion! I really recommend the read here.

Who knows, maybe you'd give yourself a holiday present with this new perspective? — Kochas 19:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thoroughly appreciated: any time someone encourages me to dispel my ignorance, I am grateful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A good 2024 to you and yours, G. <3 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by " two different schemes" in your reverts? Because I literally don't know what you're trying to convey [2] Mason (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Cf. e.g. Category:Albums by artist and Category:Albums by artist nationality. The former is a listing of all albums by the artist and the latter is groupings by the artist's nationality. Since having a name is not a subset of having a nationality or vice versa, one does not diffuse the other: they are just two separate ways to categorize works, by either the name or the nationality of who made the creative work. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mason (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

For sure. Thanks for all you do as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Koavf, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Same to you and more of it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the New Year is almost upon us once again.

Wishing my very special wikifriend Koavf a happy Public Domain Day and a fantastic 2024.

I'm starting a new (and well paid) teaching job in Linkou, New Taipei City on 2 January, so you can wish me good luck with that.

Cheers! Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I certainly do wish that. May it be a fruitful and safe year for you and yours, friend. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not break

WP:BRD

, removing content that has been here for years requires consensus. I would like to be unblocked so I can discuss this topic constructively.

Decline reason:

The 3RR rule is not the sole definition of edit warring. Repeatedly inserting the same link across multiple articles is edit warring. RegentsPark (comment) 15:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Am I under some other kinds of editing restrictions than anyone else? I discussed this link and left the discussion open for a month to get feedback. I have only undone the removal that occurred on pages that had this link for a long time or that had a discussion that it was a potentially valid link. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't use "not 3RR" as an unblock reason because you've been blocked for edit warring. Your reason should explain why your multiple reverts were not edit warring. See

WP:EW for exceptions. RegentsPark (comment

) 16:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Justin, please read

WP:ELBURDEN. The rule isn't especially well known, but for ==External links==, if someone objects to a link, then the link stays out until there is a consensus to include it. The usual accepted evidence of consensus is a discussion on the individual article's talk page, in which editors agree that this particular link is wanted in this particular article. A discussion about the general merits or demerits of a large site (e.g., the discussion you started at Wikipedia talk:External links#Curlie as spam) is not generally considered sufficient, because Curlie might be generally desirable (and never spam) without their page for a given subject being any good at all. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 22:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

@Bbb23 and RegentsPark: Per Boing... below and after having read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, there is some poor judgement, bad impulse control, or otherwise unacceptable interpretation of policy on my part. As per Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, I understand what I are blocked for, am offering a plan to make sure that I will not do it again, and will continue to make productive contributions instead; I cannot be a constructive member of the community if I edit like I have been, so instead of leaving it up to any amount of interpretation about 3RR or "is [x] really vandalism?", etc on my part. I'd like to propose this objective standard for a self-imposed restriction if unblocked: for one year, I would not undo, revert, rollback, or otherwise edit to remove someone else's contributions (i.e. no kind of "stealth undo" to edit out someone else's work while doing other edits) on any page (main namespace, template, etc.) except for my user page and user talk. This includes obvious vandalism, style issues, etc. I will only ask for someone else to provide a perspective or gain consensus or ask that user to revert. After that, an indefinite 1RR that would mean I would only have one revert on any piece of content, including vandalism, etc. until such time as an uninvolved admin or the community thinks that I've shown good judgement about when to undo/revert/etc. I am hopeful this would be acceptable and would make it so that there is no ambiguity or interpretation for me and my poor skills in determining if I am responsible for an edit war or using undoing/reverting/etc. as a method of escalating disagreements on-wiki. I would also like to volunteer to provide third party opinions on disputes: at least one a week for the next year so I can better help diffuse any on-wiki tension, work thru disputes, and give myself better perspective. I would hope that my history in editing would be of service to others and it could be of service to me as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below

• FWIW, I can support an unblock on this basis. I expect some people will ask when enough is enough and how many chances an editor should get, and I can fully understand that. But, I still think having Justin back will be a significant net positive to the project.
  Also, and this is not actually a proposal but just some idle thoughts - Justin seems to get a bit intense and lose his judgment from time to time (and I doubt he'd disagree with that). If we just blocked him for a fixed period whenever it happened, to give him time to get his thoughts back in order, I think we'd still be better off with him than without. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Losing judgment seems to underplay the issues. Koavf was unblocked based on a stated promise not to edit war and to use dispute resolution processes. In addition to the two blocks since then (one from two simultaneous AN3 reports), they have also made things up in an edit summary and used protection gaming to lock in their edits and avoid dispute resolution processes. These appear to be active choices made in spite of what was said in the last (non-procedural) successful unblock request. There is nothing in the above unblock request that suggests it will be treated differently. CMD (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me: I was mistaken about that and acknowledged it at the time when you pointed it out. If someone looks at the talk page of that article, he can easily see how there were multiple claims that an editor was trying to object to/remove/etc. from the page simultaneously. That was a simple mistake that I agreed was a mistake when you pointed it out. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough to make a mistake, but there was no attempt to rectify/explain the mistake or continue with dispute resolution processes. The claim was quite similar wording to the "content that has been here for years requires consensus" in your unblock request above. CMD (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  There was quite a bit of discussion to resolve the dispute on that talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is more to the dispute resolution process than that, which is especially apparent when there is a refusal to discuss or make use of the dispute resolution processes after requesting a page lock immediately following a specifically misleading edit summary. I am having trouble expressing my thoughts on this well, but it's odd to read the above short reply which focuses on just one part of dispute resolution in a talkpage section which begun with an unblock request which similarly asserts discussion and focuses on one specific aspect of edit warring. On broader reflection, while I don't recall specifics, I had a vague positive impression of your contributions possibly based on some interactions in the deep past. I was not really editing around the time you were blocked, and was surprised by it when I later found out about it. The ping you replied to in the diff above reflected genuine confusion regarding the edit summary and related actions. The replies following, and I suppose those here now too, were disappointingly enlightening, and I cannot say I was surprised by the more recent blocks in the same was I initially was. I do want to have that positive feeling back; perhaps it is the current lack of this that prevented me from seeing the unblock request above as having the same spirit as Boing! seems to see in it. Perhaps I am also not a helpful interlocutor for this, but I am hopeful it might provide something helpful, slightly different to the incredulity focused on below. Best, CMD (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm confused by what you're trying to accomplish. You came here, unsolicited, to bring up some problem on another page. My interpretation of your motive was "Hey, this guy pulls sneaky tricks". I responded by saying, "It was not a trick, it was a misunderstanding, which I acknowledged and if others look at that talk page, there is extensive conversation and you can see how it could have been confusing". Your complaint seems to now be that I requested page protection: of course I did, in order to stop the unhelpful edit warring. I don't see how that's a bad thing: this is an example of a time where I sunk a lot of energy into trying to resolve a conflict. What am I missing here about your posts and intentions and how it relates to me being a constructive editor? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The point raised was not requesting page protection on its own as an isolated incident. The point raised was requesting page protection immediately after edit warring in a disputed change you preferred (this was exacerbated by having that request point to the edit history where you had just left an edit summary which mistakenly stated something incorrect, but that is also not by itself the full issue). It is perplexing to read "in order to stop the unhelpful edit warring" italicized, when the most recent edit prior to that request was yours. Is it not apparent that there is an incongruity in that, and why this might be seen as "a bad thing"? As to the solicitation, this page has been on my watchlist for I don't know how long, back to the deep past period mentioned above presumably, and I noticed the discussion. As to how it relates to constructive editing, it is a reflection following a block on issues that seem related to the reasons for that block. The confusion as to what I am trying to accomplish is understandable, I have ambivalent feelings which I tried to express above, so I don't think I'm fishing for a particular long-term end goal. That said, a block unblock block cycle is certainly not a great long-term end goal, and the unblock request did not read to me as likely to escape that cycle. The hope is, as mentioned, something helpful, but I don't think there is a particular accomplishment in mind. CMD (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I assume that anyone who is going to protect a page is going to investigate why it is being protected, what the issue is, etc. I was not just trying to slide in and get my way and then have an ignorant admin protect it so that what I want was static. Or whatever else you're trying to say: I'm honestly not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just explaining that I wasn't doing anything nefarious or underhanded and tried to actually resolve a dispute with talking page posts, an RfC, etc. So I appreciate your ambivalence and also how complicated and annoying that whole talk page scenario was, but if your concern is that I'm someone here to game the system or that I'm interested in using trickery to get what I want, I'm trying to explain how that's not the case. If you think there is some constructive way for me to break this cycle, I'm all ears. If you think it's intractable and it's just impossible for me to be a constructive editor, then I appreciate your perspective, but disagree and think that to the extent that anything I've done has been detrimental, it is far outweighed by the positives. And for that matter, I'm not interested in trying to bicker or relitigate, merely set the record straight about my intentions. Editors here have certainly pointed out how they think I'm a bad person or whatever and that can stand, so if your perspective is that I'm a net negative, then you are certainly entitled to that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• I second what Boing! said. The blocking administrator should make an impartial analysis of the benefits Koavf brings to Wikipedia vs the negatives. Considering the huge amount of positive contributions and also that no editor gets a free pass from policies, I think if Koavf keeps having block-worthy issues, I suggest simply give him blocks for each occasion and let him back after a period of time, depending on the severity of the transgression and the context. After all, blocks are not punitive but to protect the project. And I think Koavf is bringing Wikipedia more positive than negatives, meaning in a balance he is not harming the project. Also, Koavf likely doesn't enjoy at all being blocked, so I suspect he is gonna try not to get in such situation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Justin, what would your reaction be to making the no-reverts rule you've suggested indefinite, subject to appeal here on your talk with any admin able to lift as an individual admin action (rather than requiring a community appeal) after a year? Valereee (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would have no objection to that and would not appeal it for the duration of 2024 at least. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, do you have an opinion on that? It's an editing restriction pretty useful in solving the current issue, and I kind of feel like it kicks the question of net positive down the road without causing much actual wasting of other editors' time. Valereee (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblocked

After reviewing the discussion here, I am accepting your unblock request with the following restriction, which I'll log at

Koavf is subject to a

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• For talk page watchers, this unblock is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Koavf unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone with a worse block record. Mostly for edit-warring, a couple for violating a 1RR parole, 5 of them indefinite (the last unblock for an indefinite just over a year ago), some agf unblocked. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Why did you post this other than to harass me? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Justin, try to make things better, not worse. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Granted you managed to edit for 9 years without a block, then went back to your old ways, mainly being blocked for editwarring/3RR violations and several for violating a 1RR ruling by the Arbitration Committee. You made promises to stop but you couldn't keep them. I don't see how making clear your block record is harassment, it's simply here to give anyone looking at any unblock request some of the background easily. I can of course understand how you wouldn't want me to do that. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I find it hard to believe that you think this is a constructive and helpful post to make. As I have asked you multiple times before, please stop posting noise like this. What I don't want you to do is post your negative, rude, harassment. Would you please stop? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell if your silence is agreement or just ignoring my question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The only possible criticism I would levy on Doug Weller is

WP:AVOIDYOU ie: say "It may be of interest to administrators to look at the block log" rather than "You have been blocked over 20 times". However, that's such a minor nitpick that it sounds unnecessarily harsh to even mention it. Seriously, Justin, you're pretty much at the Last Chance Saloon here, and if you don't abide by the 1RR restriction, you're likely to find yourself permanently banned from the project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So, sorry again if this sounds harsh. But someone needs to tell it straight to try to get it through to you. I wish you the best of luck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't sound harsh. I appreciate the help. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Koavf. Given that you are currently blocked, you may want to consider taking the course Negotiation, Mediation and Conflict Resolution Specialization. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. It's a good skill to have. Have a good 2024. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy 2024! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this account's granted user-rights per extensive block log for edit-warring. You may appeal the removal (or ask for restoration of individual user-rights) with a

Understandable. Thanks for the notice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:United Nations diplomats has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Following a discussion at the

Koavf is subject to an indefinite

administrators' noticeboard

. This restriction may appealed after one year, and every six months after an unsuccessful appeal.

The sanction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Another, similar proposal was closed as unsuccessful, and the siteban proposal remains open for discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I guess I'm confused on leaving open the discussion: weren't these rival proposals? Maybe I just don't understand the process here: is this common (i.e. having three options and closing two at one time)? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I considered that myself, but I don't think it would be a definitive reading that choosing more than one proposal should be impossible. If the community feels that a second sanction would be overkill, they can oppose it. But if the community still wishes to enact a siteban, I don't think it'd be fair to deny it the chance to be enacted because a more lenient remedy was also chosen. You are free to challenge that interpretation, of course, at

WP:XRV. theleekycauldron (talk

• she/her) 06:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that I need to escalate your interpretation and it may all be moot. Thanks for explaining. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Please take care as your rollback access has been removed locally, you may not make use of your global rollback tools on the English Wikipedia per the global rights policy. You may want to install some custom userscripts to remove rollback and undo links to avoid inadvertently violating your 0RR above. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Duly noted. Thanks for the advice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.