I have just discovered your history of creating redirects. You have created close to 800 redirects, most of which have been deleted, and there are others so pointless that they could well be deleted. At best they are completely pointless, and some of them seem to be so unreasonable that it is difficult to believe they were made in good faith, as opposed to being vandalism. Creating pages which are certain to be deleted is not merely pointless, it is actually harmful, as the deletion process takes up time of editors who could instead have used the time on more useful tasks. Please don't create any more pointless redirects, and if you do, then expect to be blocked from editing by an administrator.
A quick look suggests that similar remarks may apply to some other pages you have created.
Don't write edit summaries in Chinese. All content of the English language Wikipedia should be capable of being understood by anyone with a competent understanding of English, without needing to be able to understand other languages. JBW (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've reduced the number of redirects I create to make sure I don't get banned.
Some of my Cross-wiki scripts are only in Chinese. Other than that, my other editors will not use Chinese. I will try my best to ensure that most of my editing is in English. Q28 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since writing the above message I have seen more of your history. I see that you received warnings more than a year ago both on creating unhelpful redirects and on using edit summaries which don't convey to other editors what you are doing. I also see that you have repeatedly received warnings about various other matters, and have ignored them and carried on in the same way, and that you have been briefly blocked for disruptive editing. The extent to which you have continued to do things you have been warned about is more than enough to justify an immediate block now, but instead I'm giving you one more warning. If you continue to do things which you have been warned about, or other disruptive editing essentially similar, you may be blocked without further notice.
One of the things which you have been repeatedly warned about is using a signature which looks like a comment or statement about yourself, rather than a signature. Please change your signature before you make any more posts on talk pages or other discussion pages. You absolutely don't need any more warnings or any more chances, in view of the requests and warnings you have had before. Also, when you have changed it to something acceptable, don't wait a while and then change it back to something unacceptable, as you have done in the past. JBW (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW, I know that I must use the default signature in enwiki in the future. However, in my homewiki zhwiki,I still use signatures that look like comments because their policy are more relaxed than enwiki. Q28 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea. Hello, I am using a global script named “Wikiplus”. This script was written by a Chinese user, and some of them have not been translated into English. I am reporting this problem to the author of this script, but the author of this script is not very active at the moment, so this problem may not be fixed for a while. Q28 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea. Currently, when you use this script to create a redirect, the Chinese edit summary is used. This is an expansion for Wikiplus, When the extension is used to create a redirect, an edit summary in Chinese appears. Q28 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea, I have suspended the use of this problematic script to create a new redirects. So is there a similar script that have the ability to use “redirect the page here”? Ｑ₂₈ (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any redirect creation script. But again, why would that be necessary? Scripts are typically used to simplify complex tasks or to make repetitive tasks semi-automatic; creating a redirect page is not at all complex, nor is it repetitive (unless it involves a large number of redirects – and as discussed below, it doesn't seem like a good idea for you to create large numbers of redirects until you understand the relevant policies and guidelines a bit better). --bonadeacontributionstalk12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be blunt - stop making pointless redirects. If you continue, I will seek sanctions. Wikipedia does not need a dozen redirects for every project-space page. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac I have currently paused the creation of the project namespace's redirection. So what do you think I should create that makes sense redirect for the project namespace? Ｑ₂₈ (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to create redirects in the project space; we have plenty, and trying to replace well-used redirects with what you think are "better" is something that should be done in a different way - if a redirect is not useful or could be replaced with something better, discuss it first, and then create the redirect if there is consensus to do so. Primefac (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think you should, because I do not think that the redirects you are/have been creating are useful. For example, your "whoops I just created a redirect" at Electric fishing could be used to refer to a couple of different things, so I converted it into a disambiguation page. Wikipedia does not need a redirect for every possible phrase (or phrasing) for a term, and that seems to be what you're aiming to do with these redirects (whether in Article or WP space). Primefac (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point; I do not think you understand what is a "reasonable shortcut", which is why you have made so many that have been deleted or changed. Primefac (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac What I mean is, I don't know exactly what a “reasonable shortcut” is, because no one has written anything essay on the topic. Generally speaking, the shortcuts I create are preserved as long as they are not too outrageous(such “WP:XX”, He had a hard time to associate with pornography and It seems to be more suitable for Kaws?). Ｑ₂₈ (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the shortcuts I create are preserved now that is just patently false. Of the 31 redirects you created in the article space, 29 have been deleted and the other two were converted into something else. As near as I can tell this holds true for almost all non-XfD-related pages you have created in the WP space as well. I know you are trying to be helpful and give alternate options for people looking for content, but whether it is a language issue or something else your contributions have not been found to be helpful. This is why there are two sections on your talk page asking you to stop creating these redirects. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac In fact, I created a total of 228 redirects, I don't know what you're lookingfor. However, only 12.7% of the pages I created in the main namespace were deleted, and I'm working on reducing that percentage. In addition, of the 194 pages I created in the wikipedia namespace, Only 10% of the pages were deleted, not as much as you might expect. Q𝟤𝟪06:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac Don't trying to convince them, this user is blocked in zhwiki for 2 years for not understanding the policys and guidelines(including reject AFC submissions by the reason of no image is included). QiuLiming1 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac, please don't believe QiuLiming1, The account has only been created this year, and the number of edits is not even 500, while my number of edits is 10+ times that of the other side. Q𝟤𝟪12:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for interrupting, but I want to say that this user is indeed being blocked in zhwiki for 2 years due to multiple reasons. See zh:Special:Diff/72777645. @Q28: The number of edits of the user does not mean anything when talking on trust worthy of the person. 49.182.2.223 (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that note, I cannot believe I never noticed that notice (and of course the deleted redirects show up as deleted, which is also probably why I missed it). Primefac (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if a redirection is still a redirect now, it will not be recorded, but a deleted redirect will be recorded, which is why the data you get is not credible. Q𝟤𝟪12:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do admit I misread the report and made a mistake. I still suggest you really consider whether your creations are necessary, as many are not. Primefac (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QiuLiming1, Q28 was blocked, once, in August 2021. At this point you seem to have no interest in Q28 other than to harass them, so I would kindly ask that you stop posting here. If you have substantive concerns about their editing (other than simply "they were blocked on a different wiki") please use WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jae Kulture created the draft draft:CokeYung and you requested speedy deletion on this page under CSD G7, but on User talk:Jae Kulture and the log shows that you deleted the thing, not the original author. Please explain this edit. I don't think you should remove an "edit test" for a draft. It still contains some content ("CokeYung is a South African rapper" is a complete sentence). QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QiuLiming1, WP:G7 states If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. This is what happened, so the G7 request as placed by Q28 is perfectly legitimate. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:15, 21 October 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.
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock for #10753231
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
It's unclear if you are asking for the block to be lifted or for WP:IPBE to be granted. You do not seem eligible for IPBE at this time. You have too many warnings and haven't edited in six months. Another admin may view this differently. As to unblocking, the block ID you list is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Now I can resume editing for a while. But how much more work do I have to do to get IPBE to let me edit by proxy?Yamla:--Q𝟤𝟪01:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mattdaviesfsic}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Pbsouthwood, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Fu¢k, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Pbsouthwood}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You recently mass nominated several templates for deletion. Several of your reasons are not very insightful as to why, such as "Ṇẹṿệṝ Ựṣḝ","Ṋớṫ ḯṅửṥḛ", "Obviously, this page should not be available" "It's obviously not needed" etc... I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny with the strange characters and the "Fu¢k" redirect mentioned above, but please try to be clearer and joke around less. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)21:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be more direct: stop nominating templates for deletion. While I realise it has been since 2020 since you were warned, you were warned for this sort of disruptive behaviour back then as well. Leave the template space alone. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Stop making new TFDs. Thanks. Your sandbox nominations are in fact completely disruptive, and many of your other nominations have also been without merit. Izno (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say the same thing. I believe part of the issue is that your English is not advanced enough to effectively engage in these discussions. You may wish to consider contributing to the Wikipedia project in your native language instead. MClay1 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mclay1Although my mother tongue should be Chinese, unfortunately, I have been banned by the local community in the corresponding language Wikipedia, and there are about 14 months left to unblock it. English is my second language at the moment, but otherwise I can only work on multilingual projects. Q𝟤𝟪14:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered contributing to another Chinese language project? In addition to Chinese Wikipedia there's Chinese Wiktionary [1], Wikiquote [2], Wikinews [3], Wikisource [4], Wikibooks [5], Wikiversity [6] and Wikivoyage [7]. I just noticed at RFD you nominated WP:XPROTECT for deletion [8] with the rationale I don't know what kind of protection this charging cable refers to., which was apparently a machine translation issue [9]. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Raw URL's are citations that don't have any information except a web address, the things in my comment are just external links, some to the other Chinese language projects, some to diffs of you saying stuff that suggests your English skills are not at the level required to contribute here. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your message is from the same person as the previous message with the same IP address, please register an account. I can recommend a user name “Vuse” to you, he is not registered, and it is easy to remember. Q𝟤𝟪10:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sigh I was planning on leaving well enough alone but based on the above, and the string of absolutely useless redirects, I have blocked you (Q28, not Tavix) from editing the Wikipedia and Template spaces indefinitely. If you really want to improve Wikipedia, improve articles and stop mucking about elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac So what should I do if I make more main namespace edits in the future, but when I try to make change of the templates that relate to article, I can't do it because of the ban, or I'd use EP template? Q𝟤𝟪13:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac But so far, I still have no way to report vand, because the banned content includes AIV. So can you adjust the block range content to template and project namespace but except for the necessary Anti-sabotage pages such us UAA, RFPP, AIV? If you can, The editing of WP namespace will be done by the filter. Q𝟤𝟪00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you were a regular editor of any of those boards, I might consider it, but you have made all of two AIV reports in the last two years, and the half-dozen RFPP requests you have made have almost all been declined. Primefac (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix Tbh, "Wikipedia:RFZ" is not really easy to figure out even if you know the meaning of "Zzz"; on the other hand it should be pretty clear that the nomination was not referring to any person (incorrect pronouns being chosen is something rather common in machine translations). (Since I don't agree with the speedy closure there, I'm about to nominate that page again.) 1234qwer1234qwer418:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.
Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
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.
