User talk:Gamowebbed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graeco-Roman paganism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greco-Roman religion. Such links are 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) 06:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Dune images

Hey there, thanks for going through the Dune-related articles and fixing some of the fair use issues. My only objection is the use of fan art, which represents interpretation of the work by random people and is basically original research that has no relevance to the topic. That said, I've removing the fan art but not necessarily restoring the images that were already there. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey thanks for reaching out, completely understand the reasoning so no problems at all there. Gamowebbed (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

6 july 2023

Hello @Gamowebbed, can you help me handle this user and his accounts. I banned.That user uses his Nyilvoskt IP address and account to repeatedly spam my talk page asking to unblock him, but I won't. For details, you can check the https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembicaraan_Pengguna:Nofri_Adhi and https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembicaraan_Pengguna:Nofri_Adhi_02. I want to handle it myself, I'm afraid there will be a conflict. Thank You. Nofri Adhi (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems to be above my pay-grade. Gamowebbed (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

please check https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembicaraan_Pengguna:Nofri_Adhi.I banned for wikipedia indonesian.I can't unblock my account Wikipedia indonesian. Nofri Adhi (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

please see: WP:APPEAL Gamowebbed (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

check now https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembicaraan_Pengguna:Nofri_Adhi. You can unblock Nofri Adhi's account on Wikipedia Indonesian. I can't, Nofri Adhi's IP address is blocked. Nofri Adhi (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't,Nofri Adhi's IP adress is blocked for wikipedia indonesian. Nofri Adhi (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't unlock anyone 🆖🅰️Ⓜ️⭕🔱📧🅱️🅱️📧🆔 (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on D-Day (album)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page D-Day (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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on D-Day (album)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page D-Day (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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Tiffany Young. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Your actions is clearly a signs of disruptive editing not only did you not attempt to communicate using WP:BRD after getting reverted (that means there is something incorrect about edits and/or there is objection) instead you persisted ahead. In addition. you also clearly misinterpreted WP:TALKCOND as nowhere does it stated explicitly that the number of threads remaining must be 1 or above. Neither is the existing discussion opened/closed/staled blanked instead of archived. For your info, the existing remaining discussion won't be archived till 24 November 2023 counting from 17 August 2023 (90 days period) provided other editors decided to comment on it and/or if there is consensus before that otherwise it would be considered as stale already and by then is time to WP:MOVEON. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see above and STOP reverting. And note that WP:Communication is required in which you failed to do so. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to establish a consensus before modifying the default archive settings.

What is your justification?

It is not fair that you can change whatever you like while other editors follow the guidelines at Wikipedia. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed Fyi, the existing param's values has been in place since 2021 and has been working perfectly. You should be the one establishing consensus instead since you're the one trying to update the existing param's value in which you've have been told to simply STOP immediately multiple times. Also please go read WP:BRD again, once you're reverted, the ONUS is on you to start a discussion to establish consensus and only once consensus has been achieved (provided the result is pass) then it can be restore back. Any form of restoration shouldn't happened when the discussion are ongoing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding on to the param's value, in case you're not well-verse on how the archiving bot actually work. minthreadstoarchive is always 1, there is no point having the value higher than 1 for non-Wikipedia namespace (Talk:, User talk:, etc) since the amount of discussion is never super huge. minthreadsleft should be 0 as there is no point having a stale discussion in the talk page after the set amount of period unless tagged with DNAU (do not archive until). maxarchivesize refers to the size of the archived page can reaches until another archived page should be started automatically by the page, this param doesn't applies and has no effects to the main talk page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The bots page has a default setting, and WP:talkcond says the talkpage only needs to be archived to prevent the talk pages from getting too large. The talk page is empty right now So there is no need to remove all the discussions. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed As stated above, your interpret of WP:TALKCOND is incorrect as it doesn't implies "says the talkpage only needs to be archived to prevent the talk pages from getting too large". And also see my explanation of the bot's param values above. The talk page is NOT empty right now, your discussion pertaining to nationality is still there for your info. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As I already said, The talk page is not empty, so why are you trying to empty it? Just leave the talk page alone! the archive bot will archive the talks when the page gets too large! What is so hard to understand?? 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed As stated above, there is no point having a stale discussion which would be there for months or even years if no one starts any discussion. In case you're unaware, stale discussion are often the target of random vandalism by including nonsensical materials unrelated to the discussion itself hence I see no point having stale there to be a magnet when the anti-vandal patrol resources can be utilized somewhere else like on articlespace. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That is simply, false, stale discussions will be archived when the page is too large. Looking a the archive settings for donald trump, they do not clear the talk page until 14 days AND they leave min 4 threads. I think the archive settings follow those rules 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed Talk:Donald Trump is frequently visited and the amount of discussions started is more frequent by just browsing through the revision's history, the span of new discussion in 2 days amounted to 3 already. Does the stats applies for Talk:Tiffany Young, the revision's history simply doesn't reflect such. I have no concerns setting the minthreadsleft higher if the amount of discussions started is as frequent as on say Talk:Donald Trump. And also where is the consensus to change, I don't see one here nor at Talk:Tiffany Young nor have this discussion concluded. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

minthreads left obviously needs to be higher, your actions are harvesting the talk page. I say change it to 4, even though 5 is the default value. By the way i cant compare to similar articles since you have changed all the archive settings to fit your own preference (eg Girls Generation) 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed Please please please do a simple counting of the number of discussion started in Talk:Donald Trump (I'm not asking you to go merry-go-round and compared with other K-pop articles which has minimum traffic in terms of discussion started) in the span of 1-3 days. Does Talk:Tiffany Young has the same number of discussion started compared to Talk:Donald Trump in the span of 1-3 days? The answer is obviously no. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paper9oll Why do you get to decide the archive settings without consensus, but when i change it then all of a sudden i need consensus? It doesn't seem fair that you get to change Wikipedia to fit your personal rules! 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed I didn't stated that I owned the talk page. I only stated that it was this way since it's setup which for 3 years has no issues. Fyi, there's how BRD works. Just because your existing discussion has no traffic from other editors (other than me) doesn't means you change the settings to suit your way. As stated countless times above, your existing discussion will still be there for 90 days till 24 November 2023 in which if no new editors decided to response it and/or no new consensus to overturn the status quo then that discussion is considered as stale already. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER

With regard to Special:Diff/1179797954, WP:TWITTER is about citing Twitter directly. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are only applicable to Wikipedians; they are not applicable to the sources that we cite. Reliable sources can (and arguably should) engage in original research, be non-neutral, etc. They can also cite Twitter as much as they like. What Wikipedia is saying, effectively, is that GamesRadar said that the game's fans enjoyed some random thing, and it is an indisputable fact that GamesRadar said this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: User:NinjaRobotPirate conduct

Hi, just noticed this, thank you for that. I still feel it was bizarre and problematic behaviour from the admin and would say their defence over there demonstrates a worryingly bad attitude for someone in that position ("I was subjected to strongly accusatory behavior" - ???), but didn't want to make more of a one-off incident. I was able to say my piece about their conduct unchallenged, and the article now reflects exactly what I was setting out to have it reflect, despite their efforts. If they'd been regularly taking out aggressions on good faith users, I'd have pursued it. As is, I moved on. Thanks again for looking out, though. --Waysiders (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dune: Part Two, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harkonnen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)