![]() Archives |
No archives yet.
|
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Hello, ASmallMapleLeaf, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on
my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!
HiLo48 (
talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, ASmallMapleLeaf!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
KylieTastic (
talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Regarding the discussion about Suriname, it's not a big deal and it's not like you're going to get in trouble or anything but even still, you shouldn't have closed that per WP:NACINV. City of Silver 04:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Las Anod conflict (2023-present), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
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) 13:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
M.Bitton ( talk) 22:13, 9 January
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Similar incivility by ASmallMapleLeaf. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C 17:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)began opining in the EEng ANI discussion in [their] seventh edit(emphasis added). As mentioned, I find that too suspect, so SMcCandlish's notion of a tit-for-tat block made no sense to me. That is why I didn't put a clock on it. Yes, City of Silver only got a warning from me even though they acted more egregiously. But they didn't do it on their seventh edit. El_C 05:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
reflexively [took] a side- I read through the comments in the AN/I thread as they were coming in, including the ones that lead to ASML's block. I disagree with the block because I believe it was unjustified based on the facts - I did not automatically decide for myself that this block was unjustified simply because ASML was on the same 'side' as me. As with Chaotic Enby, I did not believe it necessary to explain my position any further on this talk page (after all, it was a message of support to the editor who had been blocked, not an attempt to formally challenge the block). Best, — a smart kitten[ meow 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
believe [the block] was unjustified, but do
not believe it necessary to explain [your] position any further? Meanwhile, I get Chaotic Enby's saying how they didn't !vote out of
fear of being the next one to get the WP:BOOMERANG, as a what? A veiled accusation about myself being heavy-ended? Regardless of that, you two !voting to what end, if it's unsubstantive? Because if it's merely to re-state the tautology of
I disagree with the block because I believe it was unjustified, with no additional reasoning attached — well, I find that falls short. Being unresponsive about the crux falls short. And this coming from (probably) the only one here who did block EEng. El_C 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
did not believe it necessary to explain my position any further on this talk page.In addition, my message here was not intended as a !vote in any sort of debate; but rather just as a personal message of support (which is the only end to which I left the message). If the appropriateness of this block is debated, it will be done at the appropriate review forum, not ASML’s user talk page. Best, — a smart kitten[ meow 13:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Personal opinionon the basis of what, though, Chaotic Enby? But sure, apology accepted, that's fine. Likewise, though, with A smart kitten's
personal message of supportthat also deems it a poor block due to... reasons. So I hope you, both of you, are able to see it from my perspective. El_C 13:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
( edit conflict × 2) Your unblock request will be reviewed by a different admin, ASmallMapleLeaf. But, I'm sorry to say, nothing you state above convinces me to lift the block. Which concerns a user with less than 100 edits who is saying and doing all these questionable things (SMcCandlish's note). Also, I also do not need consensus for blocking you, as it is a regular admin action, not a WP:CBAN or anything else that would require community consensus. El_C 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@ ASmallMapleLeaf: As noted above, you have the right to request an unblock, if you choose to and when you are ready to, and that request will be reviewed by one or more administrators who were not involved in the block. For what it is worth, my initial reaction to the block is that while some of your comments were intemperate, they did not reach the level of justifying a substantial block. However, one of the things that I think concerned the blocking administrator was that so new an editor almost immediately jumped into one of the most heated internal discussions that was taking place on Wikipedia at the time. More specifically, it appears that you began opining in the EEng ANI discussion in your seventh edit, on the same day you registered. This is not misconduct in itself—I myself began participating in internal dispute resolution here soon after I started editing, although not on the very first day—but as noted above, it does raise the question of how you fastened on that particular discussion so quickly. You might perhaps wish to address this subject in your unblock request. On a more positive note, you might also wish to address what types of contributions you hope to make in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if it matters too much— it does not. But correction noted. And, as it happens, I also blocked Koavf/Justin (multiple times), but please do not ping him or other unrelated users to this talk page for no apparent reason. Use {{noping|username}} if you still wish to link them. Thank you. El_C 01:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Fantastic Mr. Fox ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
So did you miss me?
I just logged back into my account after 5 days and checked notifications. I was, to say the least, surprised. I never knew the was a board for
[1] discussing bans
So now that I am back, Il elaborate on a few things
* 'So are you some sort of sockpuppet or returning editor?': Absolutely not. This is my first account. However, I have always being fascinated by this website. My first attempt at engaging on it was in fact all the way back in 2017, on an IP. I have picked up knowledge from since then, particularly from ANI (leading to the next big concern)
* 'Why are you jumping onto ANI debates so early?': This is the most valid point. I see ANI as a good way to speed up learning of guidelines, seeing them put into practice. Consequently, I decided to join in some debates after I made this account, because I said to myself 'why not? I may as well while I'm here'.
* 'Why do you edit... what you edit? Seems sus NGL': Well.... I specialise in things relating to international organisations, such as the Olympics, and War Studies. My early edits were to fill in red links at
2024 Summer Olympics, not because I wanted to achieve the of 'most sus editor' award at the Wikipedia Awards 2024. My further edits on other pages, like Las Anod, were because I stumbled upon them and decided to improve them. It's not a secret most conflict is controversial in some regard.
Any other questions ask away, il respond if and when I can. Thank you and adios.
ASmallMapleLeaf (
talk) 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocking with guidance, per my comments below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I am reviewing the unblock request and invite El C as the blocking admin to comment on the request. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I trust Newyorkbrad's judgement and I just wanted to leave a quick point, if you are unblocked: You said you learned from reading ANI, my suggestion would be to not do that. When you can get into other areas (such as content creation or backlogs to work through), don't touch ANI. ANI is almost like a place where making bad faith arguments are actually allowed, where some people unleash their worst self. It is not a good place at all to learn about what is expected of a Wikipedian. I hope that you understand the concern and if you were to be unblocked and continue to display the same haste before this block to ANI or other noticeboards, I would be disappointed. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have reviewed the unblock request, the discussion above, and the longer discussion at XRV. I understand the arguments for the initial block: in brief, either ASmallMapleLeaf was indeed a brand-new user, in which case it is odd to begin an editing career by supporting bans on established editors; or he or she was not a new user, in which case the multiple-account rules come into play. I likewise understand the arguments against the initial block, principally that there are no restrictions on what discussions new users may participate in, that no specific rule or policy was violated, and that we should not block merely on suspicion that someone might be a returning user. Opinions in the XRV discussion are divided, and I don't need to decide the merits of the original block here.
Now we have the unblock request, in which ASmallMapleLeaf asserts that this is his or her first account (except for some IP editing). While some people may remain skeptical, as a matter of AGF I will accept that statement. ASmallMapleLeaf has also provided some explanation as to why he or she started editing ANI, and commenting in block/ban discussions, so soon in his or her wiki-career. ASmallMapleLeaf has acknowledged this as the most valid point
made against him or her in the discussion, and has even proposed that new editors be barred from ANI to prevent this type of situation from happening in the future. I believe this reflects that ASmallMapleLeaf now understands what seems to have gone wrong here, making future issues less likely to recur.
(To be clear, there are no restrictions on what types of discussions new editors may participate in, and I don't believe it's necessary to create any. This remains a matter better suited to the application of common sense than to yet another in our always-increasing set of rules and policies. It's well known that I myself gravitated to the "back-office" pages of the project relatively early in my tenure—but not this early.)
After consideration, I am unblocking, but without criticism of the original block. Because ASmallMapleLeaf seems to understand the concerns about his or her editing before the block, I do not believe a formal restriction on his or her participating in ANI or similar pages is necessary, or that it would be productive to spend time formulating the details of such a restriction. However, I counsel ASmallMapleLeaf to bear the input he or she has received here, as well as in the XRV discussion, in mind in his or her future editing, especially in the upcoming weeks. If problems recur, we can discuss adding a formal restriction at that time, but I trust that they will not.
I wish you good luck in becoming a valued contributor, perhaps starting primarily in article-space and then, if you wish, in other aspects of the project. If there are any questions, please let me know. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Chaotic Enby has given you a
salamander! Salamanders promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your salamander must be fed daily and will be your faithful companion for life! You can brighten someone's day by giving them a
WikiCritter on their talk page with a friendly message, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To give a salamander: {{salamander|message=Your message here. ~~~~}}
Welcome back on Wikipedia, happy to have you here! I warm-heartedly invite you to contribute to the
WikiProjects of your choice (which are often much less drama-intensive than ANI except for a few sports ones), and feel free to ask on my talk page (or at the 100% drama-free
Teahouse) if you have any more questions!
ChaotıċEnby( talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fantastic_Mr._Fox reported by User:Austronesier (Result: ). Thank you.
Austronesier (
talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I apologise in advance for the big wall of text. Feel free to ask for questions. And please, as suggested in my request - uninvolved admin only, please. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 15:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
insistence that [your] edit-warring was exempt under 3RRNO. That doesn't seem like bad faith, but more like a block because of your misunderstanding of what was allowed by policy, with the block (rather than warning) being because you still believed you were allowed to do it. Now that you have a better understanding (as you stated above) of when the policy properly applies, I think the block has done what it needed to do, and an unblock would be welcome in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 17:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Fantastic Mr. Fox ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I reverted to his (the other editor in the dispute) edit since he gave an explanation, and I won't be editing for a long time, so I decided to diffuse the dispute by myself, since only I opposed it. Please unblock so I can rest in peace. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
Your remark about “political yu-gi-oh” at ANI was very funny Dronebogus ( talk) 13:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to
Gig Young: you may already know about them, but you might find
Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the
sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a
vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.
DB1729
talk 14:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
TylerBurden (
talk) 20:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Explain how an carpet museum that is in Shushi (Karabakh) has no relevance to the topic, yet an carpet museum in Baku, which is far away from karabakh has relevance? Ofcourse not, I dont get what you are on. Also, how is the azeri translation in Caucasian dragon carpets relevant? What does it add? Why dont you ask the one who added something to make a case, instead of the one who reverts it? 2003:EA:4F4F:C28E:A992:F8E9:EA7:33CF ( talk) 12:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Might I persuade you to put {{tq2|1=quote contents here}}
around the IP quote that you put at ANI? It would make things way clearer (at least visually), and hopefully would remove the [reply] button (which is what is making things confusing). –
2804:F14:8086:B701:80CC:FCD6:43E3:855B (
talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() Archives |
No archives yet.
|
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Hello, ASmallMapleLeaf, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on
my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!
HiLo48 (
talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, ASmallMapleLeaf!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
KylieTastic (
talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Regarding the discussion about Suriname, it's not a big deal and it's not like you're going to get in trouble or anything but even still, you shouldn't have closed that per WP:NACINV. City of Silver 04:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Las Anod conflict (2023-present), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
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) 13:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
M.Bitton ( talk) 22:13, 9 January
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Similar incivility by ASmallMapleLeaf. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C 17:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)began opining in the EEng ANI discussion in [their] seventh edit(emphasis added). As mentioned, I find that too suspect, so SMcCandlish's notion of a tit-for-tat block made no sense to me. That is why I didn't put a clock on it. Yes, City of Silver only got a warning from me even though they acted more egregiously. But they didn't do it on their seventh edit. El_C 05:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
reflexively [took] a side- I read through the comments in the AN/I thread as they were coming in, including the ones that lead to ASML's block. I disagree with the block because I believe it was unjustified based on the facts - I did not automatically decide for myself that this block was unjustified simply because ASML was on the same 'side' as me. As with Chaotic Enby, I did not believe it necessary to explain my position any further on this talk page (after all, it was a message of support to the editor who had been blocked, not an attempt to formally challenge the block). Best, — a smart kitten[ meow 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
believe [the block] was unjustified, but do
not believe it necessary to explain [your] position any further? Meanwhile, I get Chaotic Enby's saying how they didn't !vote out of
fear of being the next one to get the WP:BOOMERANG, as a what? A veiled accusation about myself being heavy-ended? Regardless of that, you two !voting to what end, if it's unsubstantive? Because if it's merely to re-state the tautology of
I disagree with the block because I believe it was unjustified, with no additional reasoning attached — well, I find that falls short. Being unresponsive about the crux falls short. And this coming from (probably) the only one here who did block EEng. El_C 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
did not believe it necessary to explain my position any further on this talk page.In addition, my message here was not intended as a !vote in any sort of debate; but rather just as a personal message of support (which is the only end to which I left the message). If the appropriateness of this block is debated, it will be done at the appropriate review forum, not ASML’s user talk page. Best, — a smart kitten[ meow 13:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Personal opinionon the basis of what, though, Chaotic Enby? But sure, apology accepted, that's fine. Likewise, though, with A smart kitten's
personal message of supportthat also deems it a poor block due to... reasons. So I hope you, both of you, are able to see it from my perspective. El_C 13:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
( edit conflict × 2) Your unblock request will be reviewed by a different admin, ASmallMapleLeaf. But, I'm sorry to say, nothing you state above convinces me to lift the block. Which concerns a user with less than 100 edits who is saying and doing all these questionable things (SMcCandlish's note). Also, I also do not need consensus for blocking you, as it is a regular admin action, not a WP:CBAN or anything else that would require community consensus. El_C 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@ ASmallMapleLeaf: As noted above, you have the right to request an unblock, if you choose to and when you are ready to, and that request will be reviewed by one or more administrators who were not involved in the block. For what it is worth, my initial reaction to the block is that while some of your comments were intemperate, they did not reach the level of justifying a substantial block. However, one of the things that I think concerned the blocking administrator was that so new an editor almost immediately jumped into one of the most heated internal discussions that was taking place on Wikipedia at the time. More specifically, it appears that you began opining in the EEng ANI discussion in your seventh edit, on the same day you registered. This is not misconduct in itself—I myself began participating in internal dispute resolution here soon after I started editing, although not on the very first day—but as noted above, it does raise the question of how you fastened on that particular discussion so quickly. You might perhaps wish to address this subject in your unblock request. On a more positive note, you might also wish to address what types of contributions you hope to make in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if it matters too much— it does not. But correction noted. And, as it happens, I also blocked Koavf/Justin (multiple times), but please do not ping him or other unrelated users to this talk page for no apparent reason. Use {{noping|username}} if you still wish to link them. Thank you. El_C 01:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Fantastic Mr. Fox ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
So did you miss me?
I just logged back into my account after 5 days and checked notifications. I was, to say the least, surprised. I never knew the was a board for
[1] discussing bans
So now that I am back, Il elaborate on a few things
* 'So are you some sort of sockpuppet or returning editor?': Absolutely not. This is my first account. However, I have always being fascinated by this website. My first attempt at engaging on it was in fact all the way back in 2017, on an IP. I have picked up knowledge from since then, particularly from ANI (leading to the next big concern)
* 'Why are you jumping onto ANI debates so early?': This is the most valid point. I see ANI as a good way to speed up learning of guidelines, seeing them put into practice. Consequently, I decided to join in some debates after I made this account, because I said to myself 'why not? I may as well while I'm here'.
* 'Why do you edit... what you edit? Seems sus NGL': Well.... I specialise in things relating to international organisations, such as the Olympics, and War Studies. My early edits were to fill in red links at
2024 Summer Olympics, not because I wanted to achieve the of 'most sus editor' award at the Wikipedia Awards 2024. My further edits on other pages, like Las Anod, were because I stumbled upon them and decided to improve them. It's not a secret most conflict is controversial in some regard.
Any other questions ask away, il respond if and when I can. Thank you and adios.
ASmallMapleLeaf (
talk) 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocking with guidance, per my comments below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I am reviewing the unblock request and invite El C as the blocking admin to comment on the request. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I trust Newyorkbrad's judgement and I just wanted to leave a quick point, if you are unblocked: You said you learned from reading ANI, my suggestion would be to not do that. When you can get into other areas (such as content creation or backlogs to work through), don't touch ANI. ANI is almost like a place where making bad faith arguments are actually allowed, where some people unleash their worst self. It is not a good place at all to learn about what is expected of a Wikipedian. I hope that you understand the concern and if you were to be unblocked and continue to display the same haste before this block to ANI or other noticeboards, I would be disappointed. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have reviewed the unblock request, the discussion above, and the longer discussion at XRV. I understand the arguments for the initial block: in brief, either ASmallMapleLeaf was indeed a brand-new user, in which case it is odd to begin an editing career by supporting bans on established editors; or he or she was not a new user, in which case the multiple-account rules come into play. I likewise understand the arguments against the initial block, principally that there are no restrictions on what discussions new users may participate in, that no specific rule or policy was violated, and that we should not block merely on suspicion that someone might be a returning user. Opinions in the XRV discussion are divided, and I don't need to decide the merits of the original block here.
Now we have the unblock request, in which ASmallMapleLeaf asserts that this is his or her first account (except for some IP editing). While some people may remain skeptical, as a matter of AGF I will accept that statement. ASmallMapleLeaf has also provided some explanation as to why he or she started editing ANI, and commenting in block/ban discussions, so soon in his or her wiki-career. ASmallMapleLeaf has acknowledged this as the most valid point
made against him or her in the discussion, and has even proposed that new editors be barred from ANI to prevent this type of situation from happening in the future. I believe this reflects that ASmallMapleLeaf now understands what seems to have gone wrong here, making future issues less likely to recur.
(To be clear, there are no restrictions on what types of discussions new editors may participate in, and I don't believe it's necessary to create any. This remains a matter better suited to the application of common sense than to yet another in our always-increasing set of rules and policies. It's well known that I myself gravitated to the "back-office" pages of the project relatively early in my tenure—but not this early.)
After consideration, I am unblocking, but without criticism of the original block. Because ASmallMapleLeaf seems to understand the concerns about his or her editing before the block, I do not believe a formal restriction on his or her participating in ANI or similar pages is necessary, or that it would be productive to spend time formulating the details of such a restriction. However, I counsel ASmallMapleLeaf to bear the input he or she has received here, as well as in the XRV discussion, in mind in his or her future editing, especially in the upcoming weeks. If problems recur, we can discuss adding a formal restriction at that time, but I trust that they will not.
I wish you good luck in becoming a valued contributor, perhaps starting primarily in article-space and then, if you wish, in other aspects of the project. If there are any questions, please let me know. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Chaotic Enby has given you a
salamander! Salamanders promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your salamander must be fed daily and will be your faithful companion for life! You can brighten someone's day by giving them a
WikiCritter on their talk page with a friendly message, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To give a salamander: {{salamander|message=Your message here. ~~~~}}
Welcome back on Wikipedia, happy to have you here! I warm-heartedly invite you to contribute to the
WikiProjects of your choice (which are often much less drama-intensive than ANI except for a few sports ones), and feel free to ask on my talk page (or at the 100% drama-free
Teahouse) if you have any more questions!
ChaotıċEnby( talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fantastic_Mr._Fox reported by User:Austronesier (Result: ). Thank you.
Austronesier (
talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I apologise in advance for the big wall of text. Feel free to ask for questions. And please, as suggested in my request - uninvolved admin only, please. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 15:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
insistence that [your] edit-warring was exempt under 3RRNO. That doesn't seem like bad faith, but more like a block because of your misunderstanding of what was allowed by policy, with the block (rather than warning) being because you still believed you were allowed to do it. Now that you have a better understanding (as you stated above) of when the policy properly applies, I think the block has done what it needed to do, and an unblock would be welcome in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 17:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Fantastic Mr. Fox ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I reverted to his (the other editor in the dispute) edit since he gave an explanation, and I won't be editing for a long time, so I decided to diffuse the dispute by myself, since only I opposed it. Please unblock so I can rest in peace. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
Your remark about “political yu-gi-oh” at ANI was very funny Dronebogus ( talk) 13:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to
Gig Young: you may already know about them, but you might find
Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the
sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a
vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.
DB1729
talk 14:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
TylerBurden (
talk) 20:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Explain how an carpet museum that is in Shushi (Karabakh) has no relevance to the topic, yet an carpet museum in Baku, which is far away from karabakh has relevance? Ofcourse not, I dont get what you are on. Also, how is the azeri translation in Caucasian dragon carpets relevant? What does it add? Why dont you ask the one who added something to make a case, instead of the one who reverts it? 2003:EA:4F4F:C28E:A992:F8E9:EA7:33CF ( talk) 12:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Might I persuade you to put {{tq2|1=quote contents here}}
around the IP quote that you put at ANI? It would make things way clearer (at least visually), and hopefully would remove the [reply] button (which is what is making things confusing). –
2804:F14:8086:B701:80CC:FCD6:43E3:855B (
talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)