![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2024/February#Interstate 20 Extension (New Info), I found the link of the talk page. I did started to post there since I can’t add talk pages new section on I-20 talk page articles, but can edit I-20 articles. I also found a Reddit post saying there’s hope for I-20 extension with a picture of NCDOT saying “This may be it.”
Reddit Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/HighwayExtensions/comments/1awsbo5/maybe_theres_hope_of_extending_interstate_20_to/ 69.1.59.248 ( talk) 16:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The Poster and Fandango says it will release on March 8th. 23.245.44.64 ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You've declined Draft:Department of Economics, The New School as a copyvio. Please will you remove the copyright violating material (if you haven't already) and mark the revisions for revdel. I can't find the source dokumen.pub that you're referring to, to make any comparison. Thanks. Nthep ( talk) 12:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Not all that material was copyrighted. Like the gallery section and the other images. Why were those removed? Also why were the awards and decorations removed? And why remove most of my sources? 98.97.34.15 ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi NoobThreePointOh,
You recently declined my draft submission for Department of Economics, the New School for having copyrighted material. You wrote that 53% of my material could be copyrighted but the copyvios shows 0% likelihood of a violation. I wrote the entire draft myself and there is no copyrighted material.
I reverted the draft to what I had written previously and removed three quotes and all of the photographs in the wikipedia page. I am hopeful that this will pass your test.
Could you take a look at the page and see if it now meets your standards?
Thank you,
Nick Andenick ( talk) 18:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey NoobThreePoint, was following up your replies made at User talk:NinjaRobotPirate. Friendly piece of advice, there was probably not a need to reply & ping three times there to someone's complaint about the talk page protection. While the poster was incorrect about Wikipedia's policies, it's not necessary to triple down in messages when one message, IF that, is sufficient. In that situation it seems more appropriate to drop the stick and deny excessive recognition, especially as it isn't your talk page or mine. Ferret was not actually suggesting an RfB brought about by one page protection. Utopes ( talk / cont) 21:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Blocked users are allowed to remove everything from their talk pages other than declined unblock requests. It doesn't make much sense to me -- I also think the block notices should have to remain while the block is in force. But that's not our policy. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi NoobThreePointOh, Thanks for keeping an eye out for this sock puppet. My suggestion for making an effective filing at SPI (one that makes the job of the reviewing administrator easier, and hopefully therefore leads to a quick block) is to make your comments clearly focused on the evidence of sock-puppetry. For example, in this case, that might be certain patterns about what specific articles get edited, the general nature of the edits, or even specific near-identical edits, presented with pairs of diffs ("here is the change this editor made, which is nearly identical to the change the blocked sock made", then as many copies of that as you care to assemble). Your initial comments in the latest filing were kind of vague, and the concept of WP:COI is obviously irrelevant---that could be confusing to a reviewing administrator, who may not be familiar with this editor. I hope this is helpful, JBL ( talk) 19:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm happy for the abuse to stay - for evidence if nothing else. Nthep ( talk) 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you removed my edits to Abu Sittah's page for anti-vandal. My edits were well cited and updated the page to cover events in his life around his running for Rector of Glasgow University wherein he has attracted significant press attention, including accusations which warrant a new controversies page. You will see that I had also made edits to other sections updating his info to March 2024 including his successful election as Rector. I think we should put this back but am very happy to hear comments/critiques of my source use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.167.62 ( talk) 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Please take a look now at the sources if you do not mind, I want to make sure I am doing it al correctly! Appreciate your support.
Hello [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh], There is a Vandalism going on in different articles by @Dinkar 108 to whom you just warned not to make any changes under WP:UCR. Looks like he does not care about Wikipedia rules and warnings by Admins so he made another account @Ajju109 to do the same thing. Just look at his contribution on article Brahmin, Sanadhya Brahmin, Paliwal and many other articles. Notice his pattern of vandalising the information. Now, He is just reverting my edits just for the sake of reverting and removing content WP:UCR . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy murrey ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello NoobThreePointOh can you look into this?
_TOC_
– A user has requested
CheckUser. An
SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
All the above users indulge in a same pattern of vandalising, removing and adding information according to their POV on brahmins , like Gaur Brahmins, sanadhya brahmin, jangid, paliwal , Kanyakubja. Now see their contributions [ [2]] and now see the contributions of [ [3]] and [ [4]] . Just notice their contributions of how they reverted edits of others, vandalised and removed information on some particular articles and everything will be clear.
Hey User:NoobThreePointOh You need to check the article Brahmin where you reverted the changes made by a sockpuppet. Check the "Sacred land" portion of this article where Primary source [1] is used and is unreliable for wikipedia. I request you to revert the current version to your own last best [ version].
You need to check the article Brahmin where you reverted the changes made by a sockpuppet. Check the "Sacred land" portion of this article in Origin section where Primary source [2] is used and is unreliable for wikipedia. I request you to revert the current version to your own last best [ version]. This is my 2nd request on your talk page because i am concerned about Vandalism in Brahmin by a sockpuppet warned by you too. Please revert those changes to your own last version where his changes were reverted by you.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Hey I just wanted ask what your estimated timeline is for adding back the parts of the Charles Keating IV draft that were not copyrighted.
I think I read in another topic on this page that you have a workload right now so I just wanted to now when you think you might get to it.
Im not trying to rush you or anything, I just don't want the draft to be deleted after a few more months. 98.97.43.27 ( talk) 18:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Did you block that user? 114.125.84.73 ( talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to review this article. However, are you sure you don't have any comments or issues with the article? It is extremely rare for an article, especially one this long, to pass without any comments from the reviewer. Bneu2013 ( talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, I see you've nominated the articles for I-40 and I-85 in North Carolina for GA. I'm not going to fail them, but I would like to let you know that I think they've got a lot of issues that need to be addressed before they have a chance of passing. I'm not sure they totally meet criteria 3 yet. The biggest problem is the over reliance on maps for opening dates; this is strongly discouraged if sources that provide more precise dates, such as newspapers or records from state DOTs, are available. In this case, the newspapers probably covered most of the openings. If you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, I can do research for you. There are likely records from NCDOT online, such as annual reports, that provide some of this information also.
Both articles are also missing information about post-construction projects, such as widenings or interchange reconstructions. In the case of I-40, since the segment in North Carolina is so long and wasn't all authorized at the same time, you will probably want to split up the construction segment into at least two subsections. I'm thinking one about the initial construction, and then one about the extension. There also needs to be information about the background that resulted in the extension being approved; that might end up being its own subsection. I don't know much, but if I remember right, the state began advocating for the extension pretty much as soon as the Interstate Highway System was approved, and multiple routes were proposed. Since both Interstates pass through so many large metro areas and have lots of post-construction history, the articles will most likely end up being longer than articles about other Interstates of similar length, such as Interstate 25 in New Mexico (I-40) or Interstate 76 (Colorado–Nebraska) (I-85).
Lastly, if you want to get an idea of how to improve these articles, I recommend taking a look at Interstate 40 in Tennessee, which is currently a featured article. I'd also be willing to review the articles more thoroughly and suggest improvements if you'd like. Bneu2013 ( talk) 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't add that trivia. It had been reverted and I simply un-reverted it. Therefore, I did not vandalize the page. Thanks 92.239.82.188 ( talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the report at WP:UAA but please note that some wikis allow organisation accounts - see Commons policy for an example, the German wiki is another. Please don't report users at WP:UAA if they haven't edited on this wiki. Cabayi ( talk) 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I saw you removed my edit on the page of the town of Andrews, NC. On the 'Education' section of the page I made an edit adding information about the second expansion of Andrews Elementary. You stated through a message that the information was incorrect. I have returned that information, and added a picture of the plaque in the school building that supports my information. There is no article regarding the expansion, so I couldn't source it. The image is the only source of information about the expansion. I understand without sources, the information may be incorrect, but the picture I included will prove otherwise.
Thank you very much, and have a great day!
JoshuaB.King29 (
talk)
15:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Mike's wife passed away on April 24, 2024. I added this to his Personal Life info, but you backed it out. Here is her obituary: https://www.williamsfhofgreenfieldandgleason.com/obituary/Sabrina-SniderGleasonChapel Kman38237 ( talk) 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted a number of my edits to the article on Ram Chandra Bose. I understand the rule that blogs are not reliable sources. The reason I linked to that site was to include a photo of the grave site of Bose. Would it be acceptable to insert a link to the photograph alone (see link below)? Should I rather insert the photograph itself? I tried to locate George H. Shepherd who posted the photograph to seek permission, but found no address where to reach him. Also, he has appeared to cease adding to his blogs since 2022. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP-IdZlTnop1_ek8qyWqrBU3UWyJ8pvdOJJuDillxWsbaXxFFwZ0hgJ_-k9HE4mX0HWgSt7e8kcpDjZzjIyFZnJbFlBhpwgviDU1J87ObegJ4JDFj2MqeZLbBBJxEeRpsyT-Lh5rngGIg/s1600/CemNov18.15+Ram+Chandra+Bose+1836-1892.jpg
I noticed you also reverted all references to my published article on Bose. I have found the Wikipedia restrictions on inserting self-published articles. Are there also rules prohibiting an author including his own work if it is published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed book?
Thanks,
Alan Aguenther ( talk) 17:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Interstate 85 in North Carolina you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Keresluna --
Keresluna (
talk)
19:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging User:LanoraBarna684, I was just going to and Twinkle told me "Already tagged".
Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (
talk)
15:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I corrected the issue in the article with just a few minutes of work. The one template at the top of the article was inappropriately added because every paragraph in the body of the article is fully cited already. It just needed a little bit of updating in the History/Future section
In the future, it is a very heavy-handed operation to send an article to GAR when it can be so easily fixed. Please do a little more investigation in the future and see if you can correct something before asking for an article to be demoted. Imzadi 1979 → 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2024/February#Interstate 20 Extension (New Info), I found the link of the talk page. I did started to post there since I can’t add talk pages new section on I-20 talk page articles, but can edit I-20 articles. I also found a Reddit post saying there’s hope for I-20 extension with a picture of NCDOT saying “This may be it.”
Reddit Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/HighwayExtensions/comments/1awsbo5/maybe_theres_hope_of_extending_interstate_20_to/ 69.1.59.248 ( talk) 16:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The Poster and Fandango says it will release on March 8th. 23.245.44.64 ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You've declined Draft:Department of Economics, The New School as a copyvio. Please will you remove the copyright violating material (if you haven't already) and mark the revisions for revdel. I can't find the source dokumen.pub that you're referring to, to make any comparison. Thanks. Nthep ( talk) 12:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Not all that material was copyrighted. Like the gallery section and the other images. Why were those removed? Also why were the awards and decorations removed? And why remove most of my sources? 98.97.34.15 ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi NoobThreePointOh,
You recently declined my draft submission for Department of Economics, the New School for having copyrighted material. You wrote that 53% of my material could be copyrighted but the copyvios shows 0% likelihood of a violation. I wrote the entire draft myself and there is no copyrighted material.
I reverted the draft to what I had written previously and removed three quotes and all of the photographs in the wikipedia page. I am hopeful that this will pass your test.
Could you take a look at the page and see if it now meets your standards?
Thank you,
Nick Andenick ( talk) 18:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey NoobThreePoint, was following up your replies made at User talk:NinjaRobotPirate. Friendly piece of advice, there was probably not a need to reply & ping three times there to someone's complaint about the talk page protection. While the poster was incorrect about Wikipedia's policies, it's not necessary to triple down in messages when one message, IF that, is sufficient. In that situation it seems more appropriate to drop the stick and deny excessive recognition, especially as it isn't your talk page or mine. Ferret was not actually suggesting an RfB brought about by one page protection. Utopes ( talk / cont) 21:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Blocked users are allowed to remove everything from their talk pages other than declined unblock requests. It doesn't make much sense to me -- I also think the block notices should have to remain while the block is in force. But that's not our policy. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi NoobThreePointOh, Thanks for keeping an eye out for this sock puppet. My suggestion for making an effective filing at SPI (one that makes the job of the reviewing administrator easier, and hopefully therefore leads to a quick block) is to make your comments clearly focused on the evidence of sock-puppetry. For example, in this case, that might be certain patterns about what specific articles get edited, the general nature of the edits, or even specific near-identical edits, presented with pairs of diffs ("here is the change this editor made, which is nearly identical to the change the blocked sock made", then as many copies of that as you care to assemble). Your initial comments in the latest filing were kind of vague, and the concept of WP:COI is obviously irrelevant---that could be confusing to a reviewing administrator, who may not be familiar with this editor. I hope this is helpful, JBL ( talk) 19:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm happy for the abuse to stay - for evidence if nothing else. Nthep ( talk) 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you removed my edits to Abu Sittah's page for anti-vandal. My edits were well cited and updated the page to cover events in his life around his running for Rector of Glasgow University wherein he has attracted significant press attention, including accusations which warrant a new controversies page. You will see that I had also made edits to other sections updating his info to March 2024 including his successful election as Rector. I think we should put this back but am very happy to hear comments/critiques of my source use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.167.62 ( talk) 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Please take a look now at the sources if you do not mind, I want to make sure I am doing it al correctly! Appreciate your support.
Hello [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh], There is a Vandalism going on in different articles by @Dinkar 108 to whom you just warned not to make any changes under WP:UCR. Looks like he does not care about Wikipedia rules and warnings by Admins so he made another account @Ajju109 to do the same thing. Just look at his contribution on article Brahmin, Sanadhya Brahmin, Paliwal and many other articles. Notice his pattern of vandalising the information. Now, He is just reverting my edits just for the sake of reverting and removing content WP:UCR . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy murrey ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello NoobThreePointOh can you look into this?
_TOC_
– A user has requested
CheckUser. An
SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
All the above users indulge in a same pattern of vandalising, removing and adding information according to their POV on brahmins , like Gaur Brahmins, sanadhya brahmin, jangid, paliwal , Kanyakubja. Now see their contributions [ [2]] and now see the contributions of [ [3]] and [ [4]] . Just notice their contributions of how they reverted edits of others, vandalised and removed information on some particular articles and everything will be clear.
Hey User:NoobThreePointOh You need to check the article Brahmin where you reverted the changes made by a sockpuppet. Check the "Sacred land" portion of this article where Primary source [1] is used and is unreliable for wikipedia. I request you to revert the current version to your own last best [ version].
You need to check the article Brahmin where you reverted the changes made by a sockpuppet. Check the "Sacred land" portion of this article in Origin section where Primary source [2] is used and is unreliable for wikipedia. I request you to revert the current version to your own last best [ version]. This is my 2nd request on your talk page because i am concerned about Vandalism in Brahmin by a sockpuppet warned by you too. Please revert those changes to your own last version where his changes were reverted by you.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Hey I just wanted ask what your estimated timeline is for adding back the parts of the Charles Keating IV draft that were not copyrighted.
I think I read in another topic on this page that you have a workload right now so I just wanted to now when you think you might get to it.
Im not trying to rush you or anything, I just don't want the draft to be deleted after a few more months. 98.97.43.27 ( talk) 18:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Did you block that user? 114.125.84.73 ( talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to review this article. However, are you sure you don't have any comments or issues with the article? It is extremely rare for an article, especially one this long, to pass without any comments from the reviewer. Bneu2013 ( talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, I see you've nominated the articles for I-40 and I-85 in North Carolina for GA. I'm not going to fail them, but I would like to let you know that I think they've got a lot of issues that need to be addressed before they have a chance of passing. I'm not sure they totally meet criteria 3 yet. The biggest problem is the over reliance on maps for opening dates; this is strongly discouraged if sources that provide more precise dates, such as newspapers or records from state DOTs, are available. In this case, the newspapers probably covered most of the openings. If you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, I can do research for you. There are likely records from NCDOT online, such as annual reports, that provide some of this information also.
Both articles are also missing information about post-construction projects, such as widenings or interchange reconstructions. In the case of I-40, since the segment in North Carolina is so long and wasn't all authorized at the same time, you will probably want to split up the construction segment into at least two subsections. I'm thinking one about the initial construction, and then one about the extension. There also needs to be information about the background that resulted in the extension being approved; that might end up being its own subsection. I don't know much, but if I remember right, the state began advocating for the extension pretty much as soon as the Interstate Highway System was approved, and multiple routes were proposed. Since both Interstates pass through so many large metro areas and have lots of post-construction history, the articles will most likely end up being longer than articles about other Interstates of similar length, such as Interstate 25 in New Mexico (I-40) or Interstate 76 (Colorado–Nebraska) (I-85).
Lastly, if you want to get an idea of how to improve these articles, I recommend taking a look at Interstate 40 in Tennessee, which is currently a featured article. I'd also be willing to review the articles more thoroughly and suggest improvements if you'd like. Bneu2013 ( talk) 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't add that trivia. It had been reverted and I simply un-reverted it. Therefore, I did not vandalize the page. Thanks 92.239.82.188 ( talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the report at WP:UAA but please note that some wikis allow organisation accounts - see Commons policy for an example, the German wiki is another. Please don't report users at WP:UAA if they haven't edited on this wiki. Cabayi ( talk) 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I saw you removed my edit on the page of the town of Andrews, NC. On the 'Education' section of the page I made an edit adding information about the second expansion of Andrews Elementary. You stated through a message that the information was incorrect. I have returned that information, and added a picture of the plaque in the school building that supports my information. There is no article regarding the expansion, so I couldn't source it. The image is the only source of information about the expansion. I understand without sources, the information may be incorrect, but the picture I included will prove otherwise.
Thank you very much, and have a great day!
JoshuaB.King29 (
talk)
15:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Mike's wife passed away on April 24, 2024. I added this to his Personal Life info, but you backed it out. Here is her obituary: https://www.williamsfhofgreenfieldandgleason.com/obituary/Sabrina-SniderGleasonChapel Kman38237 ( talk) 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted a number of my edits to the article on Ram Chandra Bose. I understand the rule that blogs are not reliable sources. The reason I linked to that site was to include a photo of the grave site of Bose. Would it be acceptable to insert a link to the photograph alone (see link below)? Should I rather insert the photograph itself? I tried to locate George H. Shepherd who posted the photograph to seek permission, but found no address where to reach him. Also, he has appeared to cease adding to his blogs since 2022. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP-IdZlTnop1_ek8qyWqrBU3UWyJ8pvdOJJuDillxWsbaXxFFwZ0hgJ_-k9HE4mX0HWgSt7e8kcpDjZzjIyFZnJbFlBhpwgviDU1J87ObegJ4JDFj2MqeZLbBBJxEeRpsyT-Lh5rngGIg/s1600/CemNov18.15+Ram+Chandra+Bose+1836-1892.jpg
I noticed you also reverted all references to my published article on Bose. I have found the Wikipedia restrictions on inserting self-published articles. Are there also rules prohibiting an author including his own work if it is published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed book?
Thanks,
Alan Aguenther ( talk) 17:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
Interstate 85 in North Carolina you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Keresluna --
Keresluna (
talk)
19:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging User:LanoraBarna684, I was just going to and Twinkle told me "Already tagged".
Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (
talk)
15:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I corrected the issue in the article with just a few minutes of work. The one template at the top of the article was inappropriately added because every paragraph in the body of the article is fully cited already. It just needed a little bit of updating in the History/Future section
In the future, it is a very heavy-handed operation to send an article to GAR when it can be so easily fixed. Please do a little more investigation in the future and see if you can correct something before asking for an article to be demoted. Imzadi 1979 → 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)