User talk:Allan Nonymous

Hello, Allan Nonymous, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to CIA influence on public opinion. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GabeIglesia (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you were trying to do here please? What you've actually done was make a mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get the article deleted, because it could be better summarized as part of history of the panama canal. Is there any way you could help me format it properly? Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the nomination for you. Twinkle is general helpful in constructing AfDs discussions and many other tasks, although I don't personally use it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the essay WP:BLUDGEON? For an editor with less than 600 edits who has never participated at WP:AN/I before, I don't understand why you are so aggressively defending another editor there.--David Tornheim (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bludgeon and I apologize if it appeared if was so. I was merely trying to engage all stakeholders here who are distributed across a variety of comments. As to how I ended up in AN/I, it was actually a complete coincidence involving a... rather unusual user. Somebody suggested we take it to AN/I and I asked what that was and then decided to take a look (it seemed like an interesting place), only then did I see this discussion, about an editor I had seen make a compelling case against closing "Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism". The reason I am interested in aggressively defending this editor is because, I felt his contributions to the community are essential. I personally agree that his editing methods can be disruptive, but I feel the punishment is out of proportion here. Frankly, I believe the best approach would be to resolve these things in a WikiProject Venezuela RfC, as well as a strong warning to NoonIcarus to follow any consensus reached there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. It's probably better not to say much about why I disagree here. I do suggest you look at everything posted at the WP:AN/I, particularly the WP:diffs--those are the essence of what makes for a valid complaint. The reasons I disagree should be clear from what I wrote there--particularly the paragraph, "I remember NoonIcarus's behavior under the former name Jamez42. In January 2020, s/he received a 1-year editing restriction for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned." The warning was ineffective. Also restrictions are not punishment--they are to protect Wikipedia.

I did not respond to your question there as I think it is a red herring. I would be willing to discuss your concerns after the WP:AN/I issue is closed. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I raised the GrayZone concerns is twofold:

1. GrayZone personally attacked the editor in question here, so I felt there was bias concerns.

2. In addition GrayZone is a big supporter WP:FRINGE ideas, so there is a concern there with regards to what would be considered NPOV.

Both of these would significantly impact any judgement reached there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it would "significantly impact any judgment reached there." Did you actually read the article? I had to laugh when I read:

Some of these anti-Chavista advocates, such as Jamez42 and ReyHahn, even openly discuss their Venezuela edits on Wikipedia talk pages.

Oh dear! They discussed their edits on the talk page! Obviously the writer has no real experience on Wikipedia.

The final parting blow:

Wikipedia is corrupted on a fundamental level. It has been purged of any sense of internal democracy, and a fanatical gang of obsessive, politically motivated editors control its content, effectively monopolizing the entire world’s easy access to information.

It is obviously hyperbole. There is definitely a bias. The New York Times (and Western media) has bias too--but it is hidden much better. They have decades of experience of how to make their bias look like indisputable, irrefutable and authoritative fact. Until you look under the hood--as Chomsky did.

Consider the 2019 convoy sent from Columbia to Venezuela that caught fire. On 2/24/2019, Grayzone contradicted Western media's claim that Maduro's troops started the fire. On 3/19/19, the New York Times admitted they got it wrong, partly because they relied too heavily on a U.S. State Department video.

Of course, our article 2019_shipping_of_humanitarian_aid_to_Venezuela#Colombian_border relies on the Western media saying the military caused the fire. It's a good example of the kind of bias Wikipedia gets from throwing out sources that disagree with the U.S. State Department position.

Take a look at this discussion (and what I said about how Western media echo U.S. State Department positions and advance propaganda per Noam Chomsky) about the superficial way that sources are chosen by WP:RfCs as "reliable" or "unreliable" which go against the traditional way that sources are evaluated. Quite a few editors share my concerns.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, and a little pet peeve of mine, it is Colombia, not Columbia.

Dismissing personal attacks on editors as "hyperbole" is, at the very least a bit concerning. I read the Grayzone rant and it was, at best a blatant attempt at WP:CANVASING and at worst a WP:THREAT. It is true that all sources have bias, but, as Wikipedia shows, even biased people can write (or at least get close to) NPOV, as a lot of western media outlets *try* to do (even if they do fail often). By comparison Grayzone hardly tries at all, and its close connections to Russia, a country known for international disinformation efforts raises a lot of red flags. Noam Chomsky, is again someone who is himself a rather unreliable source *cough* cambodia *cough* Faurisson. Grayzone was right once, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, that is a classic case of an n = 1 sample size. It's the Rasmussen effect all over again (to explain: if you are consistently biased in one direction for the wrong reasons, you will occasionally outperform sources that are overall unbiased due to noise). The Grayzone is described by the first adjective in the opening sentence of its Wikipedia article as "fringe" (i.e. WP:FRINGE). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed on Hans's talk page (who I will not ping, as I'll explain) that you've nominated several of their user pages at MfD. When I brought up my issue with Hans on the Discord, I specifically said that I was not trying to WP:CANVAS forum shopping for other editors to "pile on" to their talk page. It is likely you did not see this message since you have posted on their talk page multiple times since then, so I am explicitly asking you: please delete these nominations and delete the relevant notifications you put on their talk page until Hans has been given a chance to read my messages and resolve this issue on their own. I believe your nominations are in good spirit as, indeed, Hans appears to be blatantly misusing their user pages. With that said, I'm already trying to educate them on the relevant policies and guidelines, so there is no need to escalate it before they've even had a chance to respond to my latest message. If Hans is still not hearing me about the problems with their user pages, I will bring the user up at ANI. At that point I am more than comfortable for you to weigh in at ANI and/or re-nominate the pages at MfD. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I understand your concerns on this. I will try and close them and wait for an AN/I or voluntary delete. It may take me a little while. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think I removed them all (I think?). Again I'm sorry if my intervention was a bit rushed, maybe I was being too WP:BOLD for my own good. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. I think you mostly did it fine except you forgot the notifications you posted on their talk page.

Unrelated: you posted a notification that they were copying pages, what pages were copied? I didn't see anything. Maybe you should consider posting a follow up comment to that notification giving the specific copies you think were problematic. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were copying templates, I into their userspace (not sure what the correct warning for that should be TBH?) but yes, I will give examples. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure you saw my edit summary when I reverted your recent edit in User Talk:HansWobbe. Please do not edit or reformat other people's talk page comments, especially not on their own User Talk page. I know you're trying to help, but it can be jarring and confusing for editors to see that a message they wrote earlier is now different than they remember. It can also be a bit disruptive to repeatedly reformat your own comments on a User Talk page as many people have them on their Watchlist and will receive a notification each time. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Mokadoshi (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. (I was personally unsure about that edit I made, hence why I noted that in the edit summary). Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please do not tag pages for speedy deletion if you haven't read and understood the CSD criteria.

Please review WP:CSD carefully, especially the section on G5s. It takes some editors a while before they understand when it does and does not apply. It is not for being a sockpuppet master but for block evasion. This is often done with IP accounts or sockpuppets but if an article wasn't created when an account was blocked, it is not eligible. If you aren't sure whether or not a criteria applies, do not tag a page for speedy deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also do not tag pages for WP:BLPROD which do not meet the criteria. You nominated Nurbani Yusuf and Mimi Mariani, neither of which are a biography of a living person, and both of which have sources -- so they are doubly ineligible for BLPROD. Jfire (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry about this, I misread the criteria, will renominate with better criterion here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now you incorrectly tagged some User pages with CSD U5. User pages that have ANYTHING to do with Wikipedia like article drafts or with editing or one's role as an editor or any WikiMedia projects are not eligible for CSD U5. U5s are for content that has nothing to do with editing on this project. Valid User pages can include headers for ones User page, lists or articles an editor wants to work on, bits of content one wants to use eventually in a draft, notes to oneself, information about policy, anything can be on a User page if it has to do with Wikipedia and editing.

I also think you should get more experience editing yourself before you start policing other editors. As I said, read over WP:CSD CAREFULLY and THOROUGHLY. I don't think you have because your CSD tagging is still iffy. I definitely would oppose any effort if you tried to become a new page patroller because of your inaccuracy in tagging and inexperience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what happened with Bhavini Purohit? You cited three different CSD criteria and your tagging deletion was declined twice. Please do not tag any more pages for any type of deletion until you know the policy pages regarding different types of deletion so well that you could explain it to another editor. There is a learning curve to patrolling pages but it looks like you are barreling ahead and not learning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That occured before, again, I have mentioned before, I'm sorry about not reading some of the policies. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that in this case, it was OK, since the user had gotten blocked and some of his userspace articles had also gotten removed under U5. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last word. Please configure Twinkle to create deletion logs for you, for CSD, PRODs and XFDs. Then you can have a record of your taggings and see where you might be making mistakes. It's very easy to you, I think you just check a box in your Twinkle Preferences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this advice. I do apologize again for acting a bit hastily. But I do have a question here, would a U5 CSD be the right move for the user space pages in question given the fact he had been blocked? Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added more information about it with its proper citation in the article Noam Bettan, it tells me what I should do to remove this template filed by you in a hurry. You are invited to collaborate. Greetings. --Acartonadooopo (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello about your template incorporated in the Noam Bettan article, the question of notoriety is relatively obvious, and has multiple sources. So I request the removal of this template since there are sufficient arguments to notify the relevance in the article Noam Bettan. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allan Nonymous,

A lot of the articles you have proposed for deletion have been Kept and you have faced a lot of criticism over your choice of articles that you have nominated or because of a perceived lack of BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. If this happened to the average editor, they would have ceased nominating articles or at least slowed down and start devoting their time to other tasks on the project. But you haven't slowed down at all! Are you fully understanding the criticism that has been leveled at you by more experienced editors because it doesn't seem to have had any impact on your activities. I'd like you to limit yourself to nominating ONE article for an AFD discussion each day so that you would start being more selective in your choice of deleting articles and also slow down your pursuit of deletion of articles.

This is not a formal editing restriction yet, just a suggestion to slow down and fully taking on the words of advice that have been directed your way. There are also so many other areas of the project that could use your help and I don't think it's great for editors to be focused on article deletion instead of content creation and improvement. Please consider my request. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback here. Not sure I agree with your suggestions, but I can try to be more careful about nominations. I will say my weakness seems to be foreign language entertainers and media, so I'm planning to avoid nominations there where possible. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should take an admin's advice. After writing your message, you created a nomination for a novel that, once again, is easily demonstrated to be notable. Your track record with nominations is very poor. Toughpigs (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My track record is about 50/50, but I apologize for that nomination, it was clearly made in error. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50/50 is very poor. You are wasting editors' time, and upsetting editors who have put a lot of work into the pages that they created. This is the third nomination in less than 24 hours that you've apologized for. Toughpigs (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry if I'm doing a poor job here. I hope you can WP:AGF with respect to my actions. I would really appreciate some constructive feedback on how to be more reliably better on these. I'm a new editor WP:NOBITE me plz. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz gave you some very helpful feedback: a) limit yourself to nominating one article a day, and b) find pages where you can add content, instead of focusing only on deleting. Toughpigs (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking with respect to increasing the reliability of my nominations and doing a better job of ensuring my WP:BEFORE case is solid when I make a nom. You, clearly, are rather good at dredging up sources, and I, clearly, am not. I appreciate your efforts by the way, hence, why I am quite willing to withdraw noms. My hope here is to avoid making any more silly noms where I miss obvious info. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The song Noam's Song 2 is a war song, which occurred on October 7 remove PROMOTION check again Acartonadooopo (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you're keeping track of your AfD stats. There's actually a great tool for this on Xtools: check it out here. I think that'll be helpful for you. Toughpigs (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allan Nonymous,

It looks like you closed this discussion but you didn't remove the AFD tag you placed on the article and didn't put the appropriate tagging on the article talk page. If you are going to take on these responsibilities, please read the instructions and follow through on them, completely. Only do tasks if you are going to do them correctly. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, I missed that one, must have escaped me. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allan Nonymous! I just saw my message page, that you writed, the Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány category thing, that you say, this category is nominated for deletion, but why ? This category is not a bad category, like Opposition to Viktor Orbán and Opposition to Vladimir Putin category. Dear Allan Nonymous, there is no need to delete this category, this category is not a nonsense and not worst category. I say, do not delete it, okay ? Let this category stay, okay ? Leave a message to my talk page. KovZXad1970 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous Okay, i've added few categories to the Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány category. Please, do not delete it! Let this category stay! Remember Allan Nonymous, this category is similar to Opposition to Viktor Orbán and Opposition to Vladimir Putin category, and these categories will stay, okay ? I understand you situtations, so, i respect you! Thank you for corporation, have nice day! KovZXad1970 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best for you to post your concerns on the CfD page for the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous Thank you! This is perfect. KovZXad1970 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous I'm really sorry, for deleting this Category: Oppisition to Ferenc Gyurcsány, it was a good category, and not a wrong thing dear Allan Nonymous. :( But you have to understand this, i created two categories, the first one is the Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány, and the second is the Hungarian opposition. If you don't know about Péter Magyar, who was the husband of Judit Varga, and Péter Magyar is also hates Viktor Orbán and Ferenc Gyurcsány, so that means he opposes Ferenc Gyurcsány and Viktor Orbán. Péter Magyar is also can be write in Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány and Opposition to Viktor Orbán. But unfortunately, the Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány is deleted, for no reason. :( I tell you something, i don't wanna agree with the deletions, okay ? You deleted it, this was a bad idea Allan, a really bad idea for deleting it, for no reason, and this is why i don't want do agree with the deletion of the Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány. I'm sorry, but you don't know what's a good choices and the bad choices. I perfectly speak English and Hungarian, and i understand what you writing me. I' am not creating a categories, which is called the Opposition to László Toroczkai, the Opposition to Donald Trump, the Opposition to Joe Biden, and the other categories which is not avaliabe in this English Wikipedia, you know that ? It is 1 month, that you deleted the category, which i created it, for years ago. I just want that Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány category, that's all i wanted it all. But i'm not creating it again, because you will deleting it again. I don't deleting the categories anyway, but there is no need wondering about it. KovZXad1970 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I come to show you this article with a single source, most likely Autobiography. the writer and novelist Maan Abu Taleb. I do not see relevance nor notoriety other than an autobiography that could be on another Internet page. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allan, you could delete this information that does not go that way in Wikipedia in Spanish Acartonadooopo (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about little issues like that. I think it got fixed already. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it now solved, luckily.--Acartonadooopo (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this article Shefi Yishai does not meet the notoriety to remain on Wikipedia nor can I find reliable and independent sources, it could be debated for your Afd. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no obstacle to the article being redirected to the target section within Chailey Heritage School. I would have preferred a little more work from you to facilitate this, since you migrated only a tiny snippet and brought with it no references.

I've done the small extra work I hoped you might have done prior to your nomination for deletion. It's not much, it's just enough to seek to ensure continuity of information.

I see every reason to maintain the entry point by creating the redirect, so am against deletion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work migrating the rest of the article over! If you want to have a discussion about delete v. redirect, it would probably be best to have it in the article's AfD page. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you have already seen that I did so a while ago.

My point was that it is infinitely preferable that you do the extra work if you desire deletion. You could have done the work and performed a targeted redirect without the AfD rigmarole. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. {{POV}} requires explanation; see usage notes at the template documentation. Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize there was documentation needed. Looking at it, I might as well just fix the issue. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed a paragraph, then tagged, it is as though you have removed the item that offends the issue, and then... ? I am not sure that subject or article really requires that degree of offence delineated as such. JarrahTree 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, could you specify? Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_walking_tours_and_trails - a link would help

You have identified a problem, removed a paragraph that was the main part of the problem, then tagged the article for what I have thought was the problem solved. No big deal, If you really wanted to take issue with the prose, then that is your prerogative, and I will leave it to see if other local editors might tackle the issue. The subject is a valid notable one, perhaps my prose of the time escaped closer examination at the time of creation. JarrahTree 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First of all, please do not acuse me of WP:SPA. I am a well respected user of Wikipedia in Spanish. I don´t edit so frequently in the english wikipedia, but I do in some articles. I´am not a siingle porpose account, but if I were, that´s not a reason to remove well referenced information from the articles; references that are correct and are from FIFA, AFA, El Gráfico, TyC Sports, and I can continue... I started the discussion [1], I gave 7 neutral and serious sources (2 from FIFA) [2] [3] (to see the complete list of games according to FIFA, click in "Advanced search" and then in "Showw all matches", [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and the other user reverts and reverts.

I also posted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to another users can participate [9]. But the only thing I see are "accusations" and no one goes right to the point of the discussion about the sources and the text that appears in those articles.

How can wikipedia allow to count matches as official that are NOT counted by FIFA? It´s crazy... It would be great if you want to participate in the discusion. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join invite to join the WikiProject Latin music, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and languages of Ibero-America. Simply click here to accept! Or, if you're interested in reading more on Latin music, you may want to check out the Latin music portal.

I've noticed your interest to traditional Colombian music and thought you might be interested. Erick (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allan - thank you for taking action on the article, Na Baligh Afraad. I also wanted to get your opinion on the page Very Filmy. Initially, it was draftified by an admin, but later an editor moved it to a main NS without any review. No offense, so we discussed on the article tp to assess if it meets WP:N, and there was a consensus that it can be redirected. However, an IP, who is a sock of a UPE farm, reverted this decision. PS. this discussion can be moved to the relevant tp if necessary. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that other editors seem to agree that the article may have at least some merit, I would advise you open an AfD. In this case I would suggest you make a source table for the sources listed to help other people out in making a decision here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I had the same thought! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would advise you check out some of the outgoing links to articles, a lot of the actors here seem to be of questionable notability (and one links to a list of Pakistani internet trends, which seems very unlikely to be notable). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I've put it up for deletion. Look like someone has been making alot of efforts to create a BLP on Dananeer Mobeen. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan - if you were in my position, how would you've handled this IP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:SPA, mark it a such after the signature. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allan - I'm not attempting WP:VOTESTACKING, but an admin suggested to me that when I notice IPs participating in AFDs, I could ping some editors (like you and @S0091 and CNMall41:) for their input. In this instance, I suspect WP:LOUTSOCK, so I'm curious if you guys have anything to contribute to this AFD? By the way, this pertains to the same topic where you also expressed concerns about notability. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may know that edit warring can result in a block. In case you are unaware, your recent edits in number articles are edit warring. You must stop and gain consensus before continuing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. I think I have made, at most, 3 reverts on any single number page? If I have accidentally made more, I would be more than willing to self revert. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is a bright-line rule but edit warring is much more general. Have a look at Special:Contributions/Allan_Nonymous, then examine the history of just about any of the number articles. That's edit warring. Also, see WP:FAIT. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the issue here. I can be a little active editing number until consensus has been reached, if you want. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Allan Nonymous: I want to work with you at 1, but I can't keep up with the constant changes. I don't agree with all the deletions you are making but can see (and tend to agree) the rationale for many of them. My intention at 1 was to develop the article to GA quality, and there are certain standards such as the use of shortened footnotes to deal with harvard referencing. Many of these harvard links are now broken by the deletion of the citations which is frustrating. I appreciate your desire to make bold changes to improve the content but still think you are cutting too fast and too deep. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry for breaking the Harvard references. I am perfectly willing to stop and discuss the various facts in question and have opened a talk page on the article in question to resolve this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right now I just want you to stop editing the number articles. You say you re perfectly willing to do so. So just stop. Then you can get the consensus that you currently don't have. Polyamorph (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am currently holding off editing any number articles until a consensus is established, the last edit I made at 1 should be the last until we get a good consensus. I hope you can take this as a good faith effort to resolve the issue at hand here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though, you did not do this; you kept editing at 1 (a, b, c, d, e) and at 744 (number) (1, 2, 3), where at 1 you took out more than 1,200 bytes altogether. Radlrb (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Allan_Nonymous reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: ). Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allan Nonymous! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Billy Mitchell (gamer) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Not a big deal, but please keep it in mind for the future. I noticed a number of recent major edits that you erroneously marked as "minor" (such as this one). CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting someone translate Bäckadräkten! Another editor has nominated at for Translation of the Week. If it is accepted, it will be translated into several languages. Given your opinion on the subject, I highly encourage you to vote on the nomination here: meta:Translation of the week/Translation candidates#en:Bäckadräkten. Thank you in advance for offering your opinion! Dugan Murphy (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What’s your problem on removing sections, proven sections, in the IHF page? 72.64.34.177 (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See warning, we need non-primary source coverage of the people in question that is significant per, WP:V. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Allan, I thought it would be cleaner to mention this to you here, rather than clutter the ANI discussion with it, but I'd give some thought to altering your TBAN proposal in one slight but important respect: the proposal should include only the sanction you are proposing. Your own opinion on whether or not the user should be sanctioned and the reasons for it should appear in your own separate !vote. It's a principle similar to WP:RFCNEUTRAL. I'm not sure if it is codified anywhere in policy, but it's a rule of thumb that is generally followed in that space, to create a firewall between the nominators functionary role in making the proposal, and their own personal perspective. Otherwise, the way in which the proposed action is framed can bias the results. I'm not about to edit your proposal: I'll leave it to you to decide whether to follow the advice. Anyhow, thanks for your time! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Might be a good idea to write it down somewhere, so that it can be pointed to in the future. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just trying to think of where we might put such language: I guess somehere WP:CBAN would be the best place? Anyway, thanks for taking the advice in the spirit it was intended. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allan Nonymous,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Maratha raid on the Mughal Empire(1679-1680) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Maratha raid on the Mughal Empire(1679-1680) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

C F A 💬 14:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allan Nonymous,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Second Sack of Surat for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Second Sack of Surat to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

C F A 💬 14:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Million Dollar Extreme on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allan Nonymous,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Penna Barrage Nellore for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Penna Barrage Nellore to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allan Nonymous,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Survepalli Reservoir for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Survepalli Reservoir to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can you please revert files and words for the page FK Jugohrom, I was editing 3 days to be more readable and more info in it, so please set infos back, because donhave any issue they to not be publish.

Thanks a lot Rade777 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you try out another language Wikipedia. Given I don't really understand what you meant here. you might have WP:CIR issues editing in English. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to not delete my changes for FK Jugohrom I make them 3 days, please Rade777 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep your changes in the article, please post to the talk page of the article outlining a reason they should be kept. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all users I want we to keep my changes on FK Jugohrom, looks good and it's more inoformational. So please used my advice, I will be glad for your response. Maybe is not set all sources where they came from, but they are existing.

Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rade777 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allan Nonymous. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Aboriginal breastplates, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings my friend. are you the person who created the 744 factoids talk page (the one you moved on august 5th 2024). If not, do you know who compiled that page? I.e., whom it is so interested in the number 744? 174.240.177.111 (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a way of moving content off the page for assessment, it probably should be deleted given the new WP:NUM/G guidelines. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nick Fuentes on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allan,

Please remember to always sign your comments in an AFD discussion. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]