User talk:Lavalizard101/Archive 2
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. |
Unban request
As requested, I have copied your request over to WP:AN. See
) 12:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)- @Yamla: I'd like to respond to the comment about the Sockpuppet number: I am not Lapitavenator, My account Iceiguana13 was originally thought to be a sock of Lapitavenator's but was correctly identified as not being them but being me instead. The tags weren't corrected until I appealed in January 2019 which caused and will possibly continue to cause confusion. Also the User talk:Tknifton is not littered with warnings I got a few warnings and a couple of comments but most of it is from the antivandalism work and recent changes patrolling that I was doing. Also When I say I was editing productively as TKnifton I meant based purely on the edits themselves I agree that behaviourly I was disruptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- (copy this for others to see) @Vaticidalprophet and Ponyo: re: LTA and admits to some of the socking (made respectively). I am not an LTA and I have admitted to all of the socking that I did. Again I am not Lapitavenator the SPI found me (rightfully) unrelated to them as can be seen in its archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I used the term "then-LTA" neutrally to refer to the fact you had a prior history of vandalism and hoaxing across multiple accounts. You are to the best of my ability to tell not currently an LTA, and there is history of once-LTAs reforming. Vaticidalprophet18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:LTA. I also agree to refrain from RCP as I agree I was overzealous (especially when I first started). Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @
- I used the term "then-LTA" neutrally to refer to the fact you had a prior history of vandalism and hoaxing across multiple accounts. You are
Closing unban request discussion
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Can an admin please close the unban request discussion. I believe that enough time has passed to determine whether or not there is a consensus. I will of course let the admin analyse the discussion to see what that consensus is. Lavalizard101 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Lavalizard101! I have gone ahead and closed the request. I would've done this last night, but was awaiting explicit/"black & white" approval as this was a special block. Please let us know if you have any questions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have removed the sockpuppetry template from your userpage, leaving it blank. Please feel free to restore your old userpage (prior to the spi template) if you want. Please read the close (linked above). I have logged the account restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Lavalizard. I hope you show this to be the right decision, and I'm looking forward to hopefully seeing your productive edits. Vaticidalprophet 02:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Paulo Bernardo
He's playing with the first-team. SLBedit (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Please help
They are crazy to use my talk page as the battlefield! --HypVol (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@
@HypVol:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Knight (surname)
- added links pointing to David Knight, Donald Knight, Peter Knight, Steve Knight and Joseph Knight
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Metal Foam CMF removal
Hi. You removed the entire section on CMF, stating that Urweb and other references are not verifiable. I did not add the bad references so I did not want to remove them myself. My question to you is why not simply remove these references yourself instead of removing the entire section? Surly the peer-reviewed studies that add credibility to all other claims should be enough to verify everything else, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse.Heidrich (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey, you need to seriously drop this, unless you want to take it to some forum or, gasp, the talk page. The first excuse was "undue"--well, it was one single sentence. The second was "editor has a conflict of interest"--but I blocked that editor yesterday already. The third is "he's not notable", where you're simply betraying ignorance of what it means to published something in an academic, peer-reviewed journal--or two, in this case. Islamic Studies has been published for almost sixty years, is indexed by JSTOR, and has a formidable board, and Arab Studies Quarterly--well, why don't you ask Edward Said. Seriously, I'm getting tired of this. You're obstructing with lousy arguments: I'm trying to improve this terrible article, and you seem to have some bone to pick--I can't even guess what bone. So please stop, because I will be happy to cite you for edit warring, and for removal of sourced content (i.e., vandalism). Or you could actually try to improve the article and find some more secondary sources, which--in case you didn't know that--is the best medicine against a perceived imbalance. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Publishing in a journal does not make a scholar automatically notable, all of the ppl who taught me at uni had published in journals, only one of them was notable as a palaeontologist though. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Note
Hey. Just in case you didn't notice, I revdel'd that link and revoked TPA+email. Regards, El_C 16:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't even know what he was even trying to do either, (if his aim was to scare me or something it failed, I'm more angry than anything). Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
That was weird. I added the {{Short description}} but didn't touch the categories. The history must have got in a mess somehow. BTW you don't need {{italic title}} if the {{Automatic taxobox}} is formed correctly. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I forgot to remove that when adding the automatic taxobox. The category bit was possibly an edit conflict that wasn't recognised by the software as I did that in the edit after adding the automatic taxobox. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Archaeologists
You have removed a number of archaeologists from the list of archaeologists because they do not have Wikipedia articles. If you would look back at the history of discussions, you would realize that we have been accepting archaeologists who have good external citations. Please revert your changes -- or at least start a discussion. Kdammers (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
CIR-user
Thanks for doing the best that could be done with Hoseinkandovan (talk · contribs) at their talkpage. Based on their subsequent edits, I did indeed extend the block to indef and turned off talkpage access. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah no idea why he thought it would work in his favour. Also thanks to him socking we may have discovered a UPE sockfarm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoseinkandovan. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Disambiguation link notification for November 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tony Dalton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Trainrobber66
Do not edit other editors' userpages for any reason, and don't revert me again when I undo your edit. You are not the monitor of truth and justice at Wikipedia, and you've been around long enough to know better. In this particular instance, the editor is blocked and has no talk page access. The lie on their userpage, as lies go, is not a big deal and, if anything, is reflective of the editor. I'm restoring the userpage as it was.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages editors are allowed to edit others user pages, within reason. I thought that my edit fell into these exceptions (albeit borderline). Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Opening SPI cases
Hi. Regarding Special:Diff/1054055804, it looks like you hand-crafted this SPI report. The best way to open an SPI is to use Twinkle, because it automates all the fiddly bits and ensures that the markup syntax is correct. Various scripts parse the SPI files, and can fail if the formatting isn't correct. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
User:FireMatePeterG
Hi, thanks for your useful feedback. I've modified the page removing the opinions.
FireMatePeterG (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Added a reference, removed the google maps link. Is this all ok?
FireMatePeterG (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion : Indian Institute Of Fashion & Design
Greetings!
Dear Lavalizard101,
I am an authorized person from Indian Institute Of Fashion and Design and would assure you that our Wikipedia page is only for information purposes and specifies the details of the college for the help of students rather than the public on large with all proper citations and references as available on the internet. We do not wish to promote ourselves in any way through Wikipedia and surely welcome your suggestions in rewriting the article in a more relevant way to ensure the benefit of the readers.
We kindly request you to provide us details on the deletion of the page and we assure to rectify the possible reasons which may have resulted in the violation of Wikipedia articles. Kindly reinstate our page and support us in building an article that could be useful to readers and a strong Wikipedia Community.
Regards Paramiifd (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @WP:COI, Wikipedia articles (not pages there is a difference) are written by editors independent of the subject (in this case someone who has no connection to your institute), who summarise what independent reliable sources say about a subject, your article was written from the companies perspective and was not neutrally written (in places you kept on using we), wikipedia articles don't do that. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
ARC Riders
Hi, I noticed your
Disambiguation link notification for March 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from Merseyside, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brookside.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Shon Weissman - Edit warring is prohibited
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sheanus (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Shon Weissman (2nd warning)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McRoyalAlGehaim (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sheanus (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Revert citation needed tags on Umar Al-Qadri
You appear to have removed the tags on the Umar Al-Qadri article - the content was removed due to having no citations, it was restored by an editor and they were added to give them a fair chance to provide citations. If not, the material needs to be removed again. Please don't revert without leaving a proper papertrail. RogerCasementStan (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Apology
Hello, I'm Magnatyrannus, and I've came back here to apologize to you about the way I have been acting to you and to others in the past. What I did back then was wrong and I never truly meant those personal attacks. Thanks in regards, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Tuamie
Hello Lavalizard101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Tuamie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. Thank you. Jack Frost (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
LDAP Products by Directory Wizards
I'll admit I've never made this request before but I found that you were the last editor on "List of LDAP software" I was wondering if we could get our products added to this list. They are all commercial and work on both Linux & Windows: Directify (www.dirwiz.com/directify) User self service update their own directory information UnitySync (www.dirwiz.com/unitysync) Directory Synchronization Mimic (www.dirwiz.com/mimic) LDAP directory replication Many thanks!
- A couple of things: 1) it could be seen as a non-overt attempt at promotion for me to add it on your behalf. 2) your username violates the username policy as it matches the name of the company. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
G11 / U5
Hi Lavalizard101 -- Sorry for the mixup, but you can assume I've considered G11 as well when I decline U5. I usually add G11 to the rationale when I make U5 deletions. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
G11s
Hi. I'm concerned about a number of G11 tags you've placed on articles that have been around for a number of years. Remember that a CSD is only valid if every single revision meets the criteria on its own merits. For example, in the case of Mario Telò, there have been several attempts in the article history to clean out puffery and unverified information, not least this. So if other editors in good standing have made prior attempts to clean the article up, then deletion is probably controversial and can't be done via a speedy (which, by definition, is for stuff that nobody could reasonably object to). I hope that all makes sense, and if you have any other questions, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
Draft:Epicmems isn't promotional
It's actually a borderline attack page. That's why I didn't use the promotional username block, and used the generic username violation block instead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Rohit Jangid
Hello Lavalizard101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
) 17:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)- @Ivanvector: Most of the contributions are from socks though: DigitalmishraG, Thailandhindi, Wushusports, Columnistvivek, Wushuguru and IActiveabhi are all socks of Pcmishradigital, the rest of the edits from non-socks are reverting said socks and minor edits. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- There were at least a few edits where Curb Safe Charmer tried to clean up the promotional aspects of the draft, which makes it ineligible for G5. You really have to dig to find it, though, what a mess. I'll see what else I can do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks
Appreciate you fixing my mistake. WCMemail 17:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Felix Neff
Hello Lavalizard101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of
University of Chicago Graduate Library School
The University of Chicago Graduate Library School was closed in 1989. It was the first doctoral program in U.S. librarianship. Even though some of the individuals you deleted do not yet have Wikipedia pages they were (most are dead) key figures in the development of librarianship. If they were included but don't yet have their own pages, there is a reference to their work in each case. Thank you for understanding.Kmccook (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Psst Dadvan Yousuf
The suspected sock self reverted. You reinstate their edit. Knitsey (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, there was no self reversion. The sock didn't self revert. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Adakiko reverted them then they reverted Adakiko then I reverted again. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm getting confused lol. The pope picture is back, which they inserted (there may be a problem with that as well). Sorry for my error. Knitsey (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- They added that in a separate edit to the reverts. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm getting confused lol. The pope picture is back, which they inserted (there may be a problem with that as well). Sorry for my error. Knitsey (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Adakiko reverted them then they reverted Adakiko then I reverted again. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, there was no self reversion. The sock didn't self revert. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Deprodding of The European Fine Art Fair
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from The European Fine Art Fair, which you proposed for deletion. While the article has problems, the subject is clearly notable. As they say, "deletion ≠ cleanup".. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
I appreciate your caring about our articles!
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Gorkhali takma band/sandbox
Hello Lavalizard101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
) 13:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Courtesy ping
I think I mucked up the ping on Talk:Dadvan Yousuf so just pinging you here too. For the avoidance of doubt I only came across this article today after the post on the Teahouse- I am absolutely not a sockpuppet! Qcne (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I know you're not a sockpuppet. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
CSD
Hi, I'm not sure if I'm applying the correct criteria. Can you advise? Ref Doubtrix (talk · contribs) I used U5 as it's a user page. Was thus incorrect? This is in no way a challenge, I just want to ensure I don't make more work for others or cause some level of eyerolling. Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Knitsey: Both U5 and G11 fit that userpage. So you weren't incorrect for using U5. G11 can be used for users attempting to promote companies on their userpage when the user is named after said company. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello
Hi! I just wanted to let you know - it may not feel that way to you since I've been on the other side of several deletion discussions, but I appreciate your efforts to make the encyclopedia better. In the articles we've disagreed at AfD, in every case you've identified an article that needed work, so you're on the right track, just need to fine tune the difference between a bad article and an article in need of deletion, which is really more about
) 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Hi! I saw that you tagged
- Yeah, I'll withdraw my CSD tag as it no longer applies. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks again! Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Clearly notable, plenty of book sources (did you even check?). I suggest you withdraw your nomination. Skyerise (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
Hi Lavalizard101! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Category:Apatosaurinae several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Category talk:Apatosaurinae, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Documents signed by Tate-Nadeau show [people] are barred from working for IEMA again.
and not Tate-Nadeau was forced out [and] barred from working for the IEMA ever again.
Please be more careful to check before reverting in future and not pass judgement in haste simply because you see a COI username.
Cheers, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:A3EF:7617:2021:2DE7 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: The Havalinas
Hello Lavalizard101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of
How you say that the PCWHS article is unsourced?
Images are provided in that section but why you reverted it? JustinLRT (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Images are not reliable sources. Plus building layouts are unencyclopedic and do not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like building layouts, staff lists, class schedules and rules sections, etc.Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry because I saw that sections like Buildings as my first edit on that page. So many teachers tell me to improve the page to remove the outdated elements and change the new one. It just based on the edit history (it's been a decade long).
- According to the edit history that a long time ago (that time is someone was editing), they put the template This Philippines school-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. and it being improved. But in 2022 as my first edit on that page, many suggestions I've received that it should be updated and added and so on. JustinLRT (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of List of places in Colorado: A–F for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Colorado: A–F 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 until the discussion has finished.Buaidh talk e-mail 16:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Aoidh (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I mentioned at the editwar noticeboard the user (Paki STJj) was being reverted by 6 others over the course of a week, (materialscientist reverted 5 times in a 24 hr period), this pushed the users reverting into
Decline reason:
In pretty much every edit war, each user thinks the other is being disruptive. That is not an acceptable justification for edit warring. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 17 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.
- I blocked the other editor per a report ) 14:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey, saw you got blocked, glad it's only for a day. The important takeaway from the
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
Wirral Grammar School
Your recent edit to Wirral Grammar School for Boys made very little, if no sense. Please explain your reason for reverting my constructive contribution and edits to the article in a major attempt to tidy the article, update information and provide reliable sources. Your reason is not a strong enough argument for the vast removal you undertook, ranging from image in the infobox, to sourced information. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like building layouts, staff lists, class schedules and rules sections, school uniforms etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is this your point of view, or set out in clear Wikipedia guidelines regarding school articles? To my knowledge, none exist, and instead you are beginning to engage in an edit war to continue to revert back to your preferred content. Unless you can provide any evidence to support your claims in this matter, the argument does not stand. Indeed, by all means, you may wish to take this to the article talk page in question and get a consensus there. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- What's more, your persistent reverting of content added to improve the articles in questions by providing updated information with reliable sources to back these up, you are at risk of disruptive editing, and I would encourage you to be aware of this. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- ) 00:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable organization. Wikipedia wants to know what others wholly unconnected with a subject say about it, not what it says about itself.
While not wholly relevant, this templated message often used by admind on promo accounts, shpuld be helpful. Lavalizard101 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)- Hi,
- I just wished to advise you that I have no issue with your recent reverts on both pages, given you have actually taken the time to remove the content you disagree with, instead of removing the entire edit (including photograph in infobox, sourced information regarding pupil roll to name a few). Clearly, guidelines are in place relating to content included on school related articles, and I was not aware of those guidelines and for that I do accept responsibility and wrongdoing. I am, however, glad to see you have taken the time to remove just those sections and not the entire edit, many elements of which enhanced and contributed to the article. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)