This page is cleared every time an issue is resolved.
Hey there! I saw you reverted my edit to Pauline Hanson. I was just wondering why? Those statements by Pauline Hanson were incorrect, regardless of which side of the political spectrum someone is on. Wikipedia's own Terrorism in Australia article describes at least five different terror attacks (planned or executed) which didn't involve Muslim terrorists. I don't see how there's a breach of neutrality in pointing out the inaccuracies of a statement when the article then proceeds to describe the Islamic Centre of Victoria's request for an apology, which without the context of the statement being wrong, looks unfounded. To this end, I think it could almost be argued that by excluding this inaccuracy qualifier it's in breach of NPOV. ItsPugle ( talk) 06:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In a live interview after the attack she gave the statement, "All terrorist attacks in this country have been by Muslims," to which Hanson was corrected by a journalist
?The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail.Since you've found a different source, that's good. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Juliette
I was discussing the roll back of my previous edit of the Lloyd Cole image with Doctorhawkes on his Tal, who performed the last rollback, he pointed me to the areas I needed to address, which I thought I had done. I categorised the image and tried to give a clear indication of the permissions to use the image too. In your rollback, you say that I have contravened the Image use policy (Copyright check: Fails WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. (TW)) which I thought I had addressed. The image was taken from a section of Mr Coles website, where he gives permission for the image to be used as long as the photographer is credited, which I did. I included the statement from Mr Cole allowing the image to be used and the link to the page that grants that permission. I also have permission from the original photographer Mark Dellas to use the image can you help me to understand how I can resolve this please? Many Thanks in advance, Turbo.PS Given I now have permission from the photographer, Mark Dellas in writing to use the image, and the subject has already given his permission, how do i place the image in Mr Coles bio and not get it removed again as soon as I do ? KR Turbo
Hi Juliette, :@ Juliette Han:
Thanks for getting back to me, is that still the case even though both subject and photographer had already publicly stated that the picture can be used by anyone, as long as the photographer is credited? I only contacted Mark out of courtesy in case in case there were any other issues. I just want to check I have this right, if that doesn't change anything, if Mark uploads the picture himself, or anyone else that holds the rights to that or any other image, then that image can be used? THanks for your help so far, I'm new to this, I just want to make sure I get it right without annoying people like yourself too much :) peace,. Turbo
Last question Juliette, i promise, and thank you for your patience and giving me so much of your time already. I've been in contact with Mark Dellas again, he's happy to help. I've already uploaded the image, so can Mark as the copyright holder use the Wikimedia OTRS release generator to grant permission for it to be used? I want to make it as easy as I can for him, he's kindly doing it as a favour and that looks like the most expedient option. KR Turbo and many thanks again.
Hi Juliette, @ Juliette Han: Thank you for all your help and patience Juliette. Mark's completed the OTRS part and I've now added the {{ OTRS pending}} tag to the license and permissions section of the file Lloyd Cole portrait by Mark Dellas.jpg. which now shows an OTRS pending section on the licensing and permissions section when you view the file. I think that's everything? I've now re edited the bio with the image. Once again, thank you for your time and patience, this has been a huge learning process for me that I couldn't have done without your assistance peace., love and stay safe, Turbo x
You just removed an oral history contribution edit I made to Kinzua, OR. How is it possible to make a “Citation” of an oral history that was provided to me by my father, who told the story first hand from his own experience. Or is it Wikipedia’s policy that first hand information about a place not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rv9av8tr ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to tell that that is a Urdu form of 'mahdi'
Sincerely Heyday to you Heyday to you ( talk) 15:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I just made an edit for Medjugorje and you removed it saying it was "disruptive" and nothing more but threatening me from being blocked from editing.
Next time you decide to do this, please reference why an edit is disruptive. Your comment as it is was *utterly* useless to me.
I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong in removing the edit. But please in the future elaborate on the reasons for removing and do not threaten people. I was trying to make an article easier to read and you deleted it with no explanation and threatened me with no longer being able to edit Wikipedia. This was not helpful to me at all. Xzpx ( talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The edit summary was making the article more readable? I believe I have achieved this goal as my changes still haven't been removed. Thank you! User:xzpx. —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused as to the reason for reverting the edit. The change was factually correct while the original article had factual errors.
Please review the academic journal cited ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09596410.2010.500475) as well as the other wiki article about Maria al-Qibtiyya
Slavery in the Arab world predates / post dates Mohammed.
Hello, Juliette,
I attempted to edit the reference to the date of Arturo (Arte) Moreno's high school graduation. It was in fact 1964, not 1965. We were classmates. We both attended the 50th reunion of the class of 1964 in Tucson in 2014. The 1965 date you restored to the article is not a glaring error, or in the scheme of things, a terribly significant error, but it is error nonetheless. Many Americans tend to remember the date of their high school graduation with especial fondness, hence the popularity of class rings, class yearbooks, etc.
The sentence in question is also poorly written. It currently reads "In 1965, graduated from high school. . ." It should have a subject, e.g. "In 1965, he graduated from high school . . ."
187.140.65.23 ( talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Mark Shenfield
Hi there Juliette!
I saw you reverted some of my edits to the page Anarcho-Pacifism, specifically a lot of the links. Firstly, the old Ostergaard citation at ppu.org.uk is a dud and is no longer active so I decided to accumulate these dead citations under the book itself. I think directly citing the book is of higher quality than a dead link! Secondly, there were many different Woodcock citations for the same book, so I put them under the same citation in order to avoid clutter.
You also got rid of this sentence: "Due to Tolstoy's religious views combined with his advocacy for the total dismantlement of the state and its apparatus in favour of the establishment of a voluntarist society, he is seen as a prominent instigator of the Christian anarchist movement."
I have adequate sources for this, so I am wondering why this was deleted?
I am relatively new to Wikipedia so some feedback on this would be very helpful to ensure I can make quality edits in the future. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roar00 ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For removing non-verified content from the article Asian Americans which could be perceived as publishing anti-Asian sentiment on Wikipedia, I present to you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 00:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, a little while ago you took up the GA review of this article... I'm looking forward to your comments. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolved. Juliette Han ( talk) 20:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thank you for your interest in helping out at AFD. Just as a note, deletion discussions should run for a full 7 days (or 168 hours, if you want to get pedantic); I've seen a few of your closes have been up to a full day early. While there is nothing wrong with non-admin closures, if you want to continue doing them I would highly recommend using WP:XFDCloser to assist. Not only will it take care of the "extra" steps like removing the AFD notice and putting {{ Old XfD multi}} on the talk page, it will give a visual cue (red/green highlights) on whether the discussion has run the full 168 hours. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page or ping me. Primefac ( talk) 12:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Resolved. Juliette Han ( talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For all your good contributions! 😊
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (
talk)
19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Mz7 (
talk)
21:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The sockpuppet investigation against me was initiated, checked and closed by the same administrator at the same time, therefore I was unable to provide any comments on the matter. I will try to be calm and not to accuse anyone of anything. Since I have no access to the technical information that allegedly showed my relationship to these users, I can only state the following:
Thank you. Juliette Han ( talk) 10:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not explain why these editors were editing from the same IP address using the same computer and editing the same articles. Yamla ( talk) 10:54, 12 June 2020 (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.
Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See User_talk:Juliette_Han#Unblock_request.
I ask that my reasoning is truly addressed. Juliette Han ( talk) 11:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
With regards to I don't know how 'the same computer' argument is actually established - we don't explain that to users per WP:BEANS, but suffice to say that whilst this is a small margin for doubt in the case of Gabtreats, there is a 100% device and IP correlation between this account and Tulpan64. With regards to neither of these users edited the same articles as I did - that's purely an attempt to wikilawyer around the wording of the statement, and is untrue to boot. Yunshui 雲 水 12:19, 12 June 2020 (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.
Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My network host has submitted data to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Previous comments: User_talk:Juliette_Han#Unblock_request, User_talk:Juliette_Han#Re:Unblock_request. Juliette Han ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am unable to unblock you. The technical and behavioral evidence is compelling, and the notion that two individuals on your IP (the only two other users on the IP) who you do not know anything about happened to visit your office/home/etc. on your static IP and independently filed inappropriate AfDs that you happened to chance upon is so far-fetched to be utterly unbelievable. Similarly, the checkuser-en-wp ticket that is referenced below only hurts your case – it is completely unbelievable and gives me the impression that you are repeatedly and intentionally trying to deceive the community. I understand that you must be disappointed to be blocked from editing, and for that I am sorry. I believe in second chances, as do most members of the Wikipedia community. I have reviewed some of your contributions and I am grateful for the time and effort you have put into Wikipedia. However, this is not the right way. You're wasting our time and making it impossible for us to trust you. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you're going to need to first demonstrate that we can trust what you say, and you are absolutely not doing that here. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:57, 12 July 2020 (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.
Somewhat over a week ago Juliette Han initiated a GA review on Magnificat (Torri), which under normal circumstances would have been over by now:
The GA review is in limbo: it can't be closed in a normal way, and as long as it isn't closed no new candidate to conduct the review can come forward either. I'd also deplore if the current review would be closed on procedural grounds, without the article even being assessed: it is difficult enough to find a reviewer to do such assessment – if the GA candidacy would be rejected now, without there being much changes to the article after such rejection (while there are no assessment suggestions), I don't see who would come forward to conduct a GA review on the same article in the future?
@ Mz7, Yunshui, and TonyBallioni: any suggestions on my little problem here (which indeed is minor compared to an editor getting blocked, but on the other hand is not an issue that would solve itself afaics)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Francis Schonken: WP:GANI provides specifically for scenarios where the reviewer is not able to complete the review: A reviewer who starts a review has committed to complete it in a timely manner, but in rare occasions a reviewer withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page as follows: Increment the |page= parameter (e.g. from "page=1" to "page=2"), and change the |status= parameter from "status=onreview" or "status=onhold" to the blank setting "status=". You can also remove the transclusion of the former GA review from the article talk page if you wish, but this is not essential. Save the page. A bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page. If the reviewer has not made any comments other than opening the review, it may be better to request a G6 deletion of the review page and start over. Yunshui 雲 水 19:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My previous unblock request got stuck. See User_talk:Juliette_Han#Re2:Unblock_request and subsequent comments. Juliette Han ( talk) 09:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Don't do this. This is abusive. You get one open unblock request at a time and if your previous unblock request isn't being reviewed, it's because nobody has found it sufficiently compelling to act upon. Yamla ( talk) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (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.
The file File:Lead the Way by Mariah Carey sample.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Insufficiently supported by critical commentary about the song, which can be already understood without the sample. May fail WP:NFCC#8. Also not part of the revision reviewed for the 2012 GA nomination.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the
page history of each individual file for details. Thanks,
FastilyBot (
talk)
10:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:New Rules sample.ogg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{
Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This page is cleared every time an issue is resolved.
Hey there! I saw you reverted my edit to Pauline Hanson. I was just wondering why? Those statements by Pauline Hanson were incorrect, regardless of which side of the political spectrum someone is on. Wikipedia's own Terrorism in Australia article describes at least five different terror attacks (planned or executed) which didn't involve Muslim terrorists. I don't see how there's a breach of neutrality in pointing out the inaccuracies of a statement when the article then proceeds to describe the Islamic Centre of Victoria's request for an apology, which without the context of the statement being wrong, looks unfounded. To this end, I think it could almost be argued that by excluding this inaccuracy qualifier it's in breach of NPOV. ItsPugle ( talk) 06:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In a live interview after the attack she gave the statement, "All terrorist attacks in this country have been by Muslims," to which Hanson was corrected by a journalist
?The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail.Since you've found a different source, that's good. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Juliette
I was discussing the roll back of my previous edit of the Lloyd Cole image with Doctorhawkes on his Tal, who performed the last rollback, he pointed me to the areas I needed to address, which I thought I had done. I categorised the image and tried to give a clear indication of the permissions to use the image too. In your rollback, you say that I have contravened the Image use policy (Copyright check: Fails WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. (TW)) which I thought I had addressed. The image was taken from a section of Mr Coles website, where he gives permission for the image to be used as long as the photographer is credited, which I did. I included the statement from Mr Cole allowing the image to be used and the link to the page that grants that permission. I also have permission from the original photographer Mark Dellas to use the image can you help me to understand how I can resolve this please? Many Thanks in advance, Turbo.PS Given I now have permission from the photographer, Mark Dellas in writing to use the image, and the subject has already given his permission, how do i place the image in Mr Coles bio and not get it removed again as soon as I do ? KR Turbo
Hi Juliette, :@ Juliette Han:
Thanks for getting back to me, is that still the case even though both subject and photographer had already publicly stated that the picture can be used by anyone, as long as the photographer is credited? I only contacted Mark out of courtesy in case in case there were any other issues. I just want to check I have this right, if that doesn't change anything, if Mark uploads the picture himself, or anyone else that holds the rights to that or any other image, then that image can be used? THanks for your help so far, I'm new to this, I just want to make sure I get it right without annoying people like yourself too much :) peace,. Turbo
Last question Juliette, i promise, and thank you for your patience and giving me so much of your time already. I've been in contact with Mark Dellas again, he's happy to help. I've already uploaded the image, so can Mark as the copyright holder use the Wikimedia OTRS release generator to grant permission for it to be used? I want to make it as easy as I can for him, he's kindly doing it as a favour and that looks like the most expedient option. KR Turbo and many thanks again.
Hi Juliette, @ Juliette Han: Thank you for all your help and patience Juliette. Mark's completed the OTRS part and I've now added the {{ OTRS pending}} tag to the license and permissions section of the file Lloyd Cole portrait by Mark Dellas.jpg. which now shows an OTRS pending section on the licensing and permissions section when you view the file. I think that's everything? I've now re edited the bio with the image. Once again, thank you for your time and patience, this has been a huge learning process for me that I couldn't have done without your assistance peace., love and stay safe, Turbo x
You just removed an oral history contribution edit I made to Kinzua, OR. How is it possible to make a “Citation” of an oral history that was provided to me by my father, who told the story first hand from his own experience. Or is it Wikipedia’s policy that first hand information about a place not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rv9av8tr ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to tell that that is a Urdu form of 'mahdi'
Sincerely Heyday to you Heyday to you ( talk) 15:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I just made an edit for Medjugorje and you removed it saying it was "disruptive" and nothing more but threatening me from being blocked from editing.
Next time you decide to do this, please reference why an edit is disruptive. Your comment as it is was *utterly* useless to me.
I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong in removing the edit. But please in the future elaborate on the reasons for removing and do not threaten people. I was trying to make an article easier to read and you deleted it with no explanation and threatened me with no longer being able to edit Wikipedia. This was not helpful to me at all. Xzpx ( talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The edit summary was making the article more readable? I believe I have achieved this goal as my changes still haven't been removed. Thank you! User:xzpx. —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused as to the reason for reverting the edit. The change was factually correct while the original article had factual errors.
Please review the academic journal cited ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09596410.2010.500475) as well as the other wiki article about Maria al-Qibtiyya
Slavery in the Arab world predates / post dates Mohammed.
Hello, Juliette,
I attempted to edit the reference to the date of Arturo (Arte) Moreno's high school graduation. It was in fact 1964, not 1965. We were classmates. We both attended the 50th reunion of the class of 1964 in Tucson in 2014. The 1965 date you restored to the article is not a glaring error, or in the scheme of things, a terribly significant error, but it is error nonetheless. Many Americans tend to remember the date of their high school graduation with especial fondness, hence the popularity of class rings, class yearbooks, etc.
The sentence in question is also poorly written. It currently reads "In 1965, graduated from high school. . ." It should have a subject, e.g. "In 1965, he graduated from high school . . ."
187.140.65.23 ( talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Mark Shenfield
Hi there Juliette!
I saw you reverted some of my edits to the page Anarcho-Pacifism, specifically a lot of the links. Firstly, the old Ostergaard citation at ppu.org.uk is a dud and is no longer active so I decided to accumulate these dead citations under the book itself. I think directly citing the book is of higher quality than a dead link! Secondly, there were many different Woodcock citations for the same book, so I put them under the same citation in order to avoid clutter.
You also got rid of this sentence: "Due to Tolstoy's religious views combined with his advocacy for the total dismantlement of the state and its apparatus in favour of the establishment of a voluntarist society, he is seen as a prominent instigator of the Christian anarchist movement."
I have adequate sources for this, so I am wondering why this was deleted?
I am relatively new to Wikipedia so some feedback on this would be very helpful to ensure I can make quality edits in the future. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roar00 ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For removing non-verified content from the article Asian Americans which could be perceived as publishing anti-Asian sentiment on Wikipedia, I present to you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 00:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, a little while ago you took up the GA review of this article... I'm looking forward to your comments. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolved. Juliette Han ( talk) 20:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thank you for your interest in helping out at AFD. Just as a note, deletion discussions should run for a full 7 days (or 168 hours, if you want to get pedantic); I've seen a few of your closes have been up to a full day early. While there is nothing wrong with non-admin closures, if you want to continue doing them I would highly recommend using WP:XFDCloser to assist. Not only will it take care of the "extra" steps like removing the AFD notice and putting {{ Old XfD multi}} on the talk page, it will give a visual cue (red/green highlights) on whether the discussion has run the full 168 hours. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page or ping me. Primefac ( talk) 12:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Resolved. Juliette Han ( talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For all your good contributions! 😊
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (
talk)
19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Mz7 (
talk)
21:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The sockpuppet investigation against me was initiated, checked and closed by the same administrator at the same time, therefore I was unable to provide any comments on the matter. I will try to be calm and not to accuse anyone of anything. Since I have no access to the technical information that allegedly showed my relationship to these users, I can only state the following:
Thank you. Juliette Han ( talk) 10:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not explain why these editors were editing from the same IP address using the same computer and editing the same articles. Yamla ( talk) 10:54, 12 June 2020 (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.
Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See User_talk:Juliette_Han#Unblock_request.
I ask that my reasoning is truly addressed. Juliette Han ( talk) 11:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
With regards to I don't know how 'the same computer' argument is actually established - we don't explain that to users per WP:BEANS, but suffice to say that whilst this is a small margin for doubt in the case of Gabtreats, there is a 100% device and IP correlation between this account and Tulpan64. With regards to neither of these users edited the same articles as I did - that's purely an attempt to wikilawyer around the wording of the statement, and is untrue to boot. Yunshui 雲 水 12:19, 12 June 2020 (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.
Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My network host has submitted data to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Previous comments: User_talk:Juliette_Han#Unblock_request, User_talk:Juliette_Han#Re:Unblock_request. Juliette Han ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am unable to unblock you. The technical and behavioral evidence is compelling, and the notion that two individuals on your IP (the only two other users on the IP) who you do not know anything about happened to visit your office/home/etc. on your static IP and independently filed inappropriate AfDs that you happened to chance upon is so far-fetched to be utterly unbelievable. Similarly, the checkuser-en-wp ticket that is referenced below only hurts your case – it is completely unbelievable and gives me the impression that you are repeatedly and intentionally trying to deceive the community. I understand that you must be disappointed to be blocked from editing, and for that I am sorry. I believe in second chances, as do most members of the Wikipedia community. I have reviewed some of your contributions and I am grateful for the time and effort you have put into Wikipedia. However, this is not the right way. You're wasting our time and making it impossible for us to trust you. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you're going to need to first demonstrate that we can trust what you say, and you are absolutely not doing that here. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:57, 12 July 2020 (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.
Somewhat over a week ago Juliette Han initiated a GA review on Magnificat (Torri), which under normal circumstances would have been over by now:
The GA review is in limbo: it can't be closed in a normal way, and as long as it isn't closed no new candidate to conduct the review can come forward either. I'd also deplore if the current review would be closed on procedural grounds, without the article even being assessed: it is difficult enough to find a reviewer to do such assessment – if the GA candidacy would be rejected now, without there being much changes to the article after such rejection (while there are no assessment suggestions), I don't see who would come forward to conduct a GA review on the same article in the future?
@ Mz7, Yunshui, and TonyBallioni: any suggestions on my little problem here (which indeed is minor compared to an editor getting blocked, but on the other hand is not an issue that would solve itself afaics)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Francis Schonken: WP:GANI provides specifically for scenarios where the reviewer is not able to complete the review: A reviewer who starts a review has committed to complete it in a timely manner, but in rare occasions a reviewer withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page as follows: Increment the |page= parameter (e.g. from "page=1" to "page=2"), and change the |status= parameter from "status=onreview" or "status=onhold" to the blank setting "status=". You can also remove the transclusion of the former GA review from the article talk page if you wish, but this is not essential. Save the page. A bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page. If the reviewer has not made any comments other than opening the review, it may be better to request a G6 deletion of the review page and start over. Yunshui 雲 水 19:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Juliette Han ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My previous unblock request got stuck. See User_talk:Juliette_Han#Re2:Unblock_request and subsequent comments. Juliette Han ( talk) 09:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Don't do this. This is abusive. You get one open unblock request at a time and if your previous unblock request isn't being reviewed, it's because nobody has found it sufficiently compelling to act upon. Yamla ( talk) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (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.
The file File:Lead the Way by Mariah Carey sample.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Insufficiently supported by critical commentary about the song, which can be already understood without the sample. May fail WP:NFCC#8. Also not part of the revision reviewed for the 2012 GA nomination.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the
page history of each individual file for details. Thanks,
FastilyBot (
talk)
10:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:New Rules sample.ogg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{
Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)