User talk:Object404

Welcome!

Hello, Object404, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered Mocha today because I have Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018 on my watchlist, but I have edited Kellyanne Conway a little. Have a nice weekend! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Cheers! -Object404 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for adding to Press Coverage, I've taken an interest in that page. I'd like to remove "Powerful falsehoods"[1], since it only mentions WP, it's not "about Wikipedia itself". I've argued for this scope on the talkpage and have in the past removed articles like [2]. Are you ok with removing it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, it's okay. -Object404 (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a common problem in the House of Representatives? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah! Will have to go clean up parts of the article when I get the time. -Object404 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Object404. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on AboitizLand, Inc., requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See
  Wikipedia:FAQ/Business
  for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See
  section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
  .

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request for ban and article lock in RJ Nieto article". Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Mocha Uson, you may be blocked from editing. You have already been sufficiently warned on Talk:Mocha_Uson. An administrator may be called in should you breach this warning again.

Editing guidelines for your perusal:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Thank you.

Rreginald1 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed phrasing. Please see Mocha Uson Talk Page. Also, I have not been sufficiently warned. As you can see, no one has been able to list examples in the article under the section "Libelous tone" of the subject's talk page. -Object404 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I apologize for the escalated warning. It should've been less severe seeing as I posted the first one on the article's talk page and not on yours. Anyway, that should do. Thank you for revising to keep the tone neutral. Rreginald1 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PabloAngelesDavid.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Philippine Barnstar
		Object404, I award you this Philippine Barnstar for helping protect the Ferdinand Marcos wiki page from historical negationism and vandalism. -- Chieharumachi (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Imelda Marcos 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.
Re-adding wealth text that failed verification. Do not re-add without providing evidence it is in the sources. I cannot find it in any of the sources you have listed, and the sources you suggested on the talk page are junk. You can respond to this on the article's talk page, there is a already a discussion there Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the following books, because they are the sources in question: ^[1][2][3] If not, then you are disruptively deleting content from a Wikipedia article.-Object404 (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So. You are caught deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when you did not even read and verify the contents of the citations. This is dishonest and disruptive editing on your part, @Jtbobwaysf:. -Object404 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Neutrality dispute

Hello, it seems that we have disputes regarding putting a "neutrality dispute template" on the page Ferdinand Marcos. I understand that you're trying to revert edits regarding POV, I'm just wondering why you think that this article is neutral even though it definitely requires an extensive check.

Regarding my "recent entry" and my "inexperience", no, I am not new to Wikipedia, I had an other account before that I forgot the username and password a long time ago. Plus, I think that 'good faith' should be executed here, I am not vandalizing but instead trying to push for neutrality in the article regarding the controversial person Ferdinand Marcos.

If this dispute doesn't get resolved, we'll just let the administrators settle the neutrality of the article on the NPOV noticeboard. I see that you had a history of edit warring and calls in noticeboards before, I won't call you out for it but I think we should settle the neutrality of the article not by edit warring but with professional talk.

With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per

WP:UNDUE

, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." That you are seeing largely 'negative" content about the subject in the article is simply a function of the type of coverage the subject has gotten by published reliable sourcess.

Again, the "negative" coverage of Marcos is the majority view documented by reliable and historical sources, it is simply this reason why there is a perceived skew of "negative" coverage of the subject in the article. Feel free to add "positive" content, but make sure they are backed up by non-fringe reliable sources. as per

WP:FALSEBALANCE which I keep mentioning: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." If you are proposing that there be equal amounts of "positive" and "negative" content on the article about the subject, then no, that is not the definition of Neutrality is within the bounds of Wikipedia editing. What you are proposing is FALSEBALANCE. -Object404 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, does putting "kleptocrat" in the lead section a good sign, plus over citations? I think it should be put in the middle section, along with the multiple repetitions that should either be rephrased or merged into one paragraph. I'm not a Marcos apologist, see good faith in me as such as I like democracy more than authoritarianism. We are settling the neutrality of the article, I believe that he is a corrupt individual but we must see both sides of the issue.

With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, kleptocracy is the defining hallmark of Ferdinand Marcos, along with his opulent extravagance and human rights abuses. Ferdinand Marcos is extremely famous and known all over the world for holding the Guinness World Record for most money stolen from a government. As such, the word is exactly where it belongs, in the lede. -Object404 (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PyroFloe (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mocha Uson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am aware that User:Azuresky Voight is engaging in an edit war with me and do not wish to engage in such and I informed him on his talk page prior to your pinging me. I am currently discussing relevant content on talk pages and I hope to resolve these subjects amicably. -Object404 (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Azuresky Voight is now banned from the topic of living people so they will not be able to discuss it with you further. Thank you for taking it to the talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLP, and restore them as appropriate or fix them if they do? Azuresky Voight deleted large chunks of content on that article claiming violations of BLP policies, when in fact a good amount of the content he deleted do not. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. You should wait a full 24 hours since your last revert, and mention what you are doing on the talk page. As you say take care of BLP. If another editor has a problem of course stop and discuss. Azuresky did not seem to grasp the nuances of our BLP policy. HighInBC ^{Need help?} Just ask. 23:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your recent editing history at Ferdinand Marcos 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

talk to me 08:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing.

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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a second look at the evidence involved here, I have unblocked. Further reading of the evidence raised a few questions about its reliability, and the person who sent the ticket in clearly had an axe to grind, so I'm questioning its reliability even more. This is entirely my fault; I was too quick to block and did not evaluate the evidence with a sufficiently critical eye. All I can say is that I am sorry for acting so hastily. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have never engaged in paid editing on Wikipedia nor am I aware of any conflict of interest in my editing. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Nomination of List of games with EAX support for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of games with EAX support, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with EAX support until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you can find the information elsewhere now

https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_games_with_EAX_support is where I exported it to. You could probably put it on the gaming fandom, or find a retro gaming forum, or whatever else this is used for. Just look around and see what's there. Even make your own if you want. Dream Focus 05:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -Object404 (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Purple Barnstar
	Thank you, Object404, for your diligent coverage of fake news in the Philippines, despite receiving an egregious amount of harassment from a former editor. Your perseverance makes Wikipedia better. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not already aware, please note that the

sockpuppets of previously blocked editors, e.g. Azuresky Voight (talk · contribs) and RhoNuPsiDelta (talk · contribs), who are sockpuppets of the previously blocked editor NoNDeSCRiPT (talk · contribs). Please feel free to contact me or another administrator if you encounter this former editor again. — Newslinger talk 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of VAPT

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on

section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify

their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Concern regarding Draft:VAPT

request

that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

talk) 15:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]