This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Legend of 14.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 thecurrent talk page.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
You did the behaviour in question. It is not an abuse or violation of policy to leave a notice related to a behaviour a user actually engaged in. I obviously wasn't testing. I understand that you disagree with my decision to leave a notice, because 2 weeks have since you made the edits in question, but their is no policy preventing this. You're free toremove and move on. I'm not entertaining further discussion about this on my talk page. Happy editing.Legend of 14 (talk)04:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Your recent editing history atDarrel Kent shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. This is your formal warning which you have not received yet. While you are welcome to BOLDLY edit, once your edit has been reverted by someone else you should NOT redo the same or similar edit again. I am glad to see that once that was reverted a second time you left the matter alone. But be cautioned that edit warring is prohibited. This is your SINGLE WARNING on this matter, and should be BROADLY CONSTRUED towards all articles, not just this one article referenced.TiggerJay(talk)18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I thought reverting Vandalism like removing valid maintenance tags, andWP:BOLP violations like unsourced claims about living people were exemptions to the edit warring policy, Can you please clarify why these aren't applicable? Thanks.Legend of 14 (talk)18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
While Imight agree that on the surface it looks like removing that information would be an acceptable BOLD edit, that does not mean that it is vandalism. It does not matter if your initial reason to remove was justified or unjustified, if it does not fit under the narrow scope ofWP:3RRNO then your consecutive removal of informationdoes count towards disruptive edit warring.TiggerJay(talk)19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I was not saying all of the content I removed was vandalism, I'm calling the removal of the {{onesource}} obvious vandalism. The other content was not obvious vandalism but subject to another exception. The rest of it was "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased,unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." -WP:3RRNO [emphasis added, hyperlinks omitted]
Of course you opted to overlook the rest of that line in 3RRNO,What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.. While that statement you removed might need a proper citation, there isn't anything specifically "contentious material". The three-way race, around 28% actually seems to be fully supported at1991 Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality elections. So what part of that was contentious? To be clear, that exemption is narrowly forcontentious material not simply "unsourced" material.TiggerJay(talk)19:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I always get concerned about elections results, as elections are contentious topics. I was not aware that 1991 Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality elections had the same information, the article didn't come up in my search and that the information was cited. I conducted an internet search for 28% figure, but couldn't find a source online to support it. I removed it since I couldn't find a source and uncited material must be removed immediately. People will very likely be angry if the number for a candidate they liked is lower than it should be, or an opponent would likely be angry if the number is higher. Great care is exercised to ensure election results are as accurate as possible. That is why I concluded the information was contentious.
Again, regardless of the reason for the 1st instance removal of information, there is NOTHING wrong done... However, it was on the second revert that you should not have done. That is where it needs to go to the article talk page, to discuss that specific item, and therein a source would have likely been found. For example I simply did a google search for "darrel kent peter clark race" and that WP article was the third result. But instead of either independently researching it or going to the talk page, you reverted the edit again, which is edit warring behavior. A bit of advice, while edit count and age of a user isn't definitive, when you find yourself in a situation with an editor with many times the number of years of experience and over 100,000 edits to their name, it might be worth a pause and consider for a moment that they might not be the perpetrator here, or rather that you're not the victim in this situation. That is not always going to be true, but it is always worth a moment to pause and think, what am I not understanding about this situation.TiggerJay(talk)22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I never said I was a victim.
I just have 1 clarifying question. What is the reason for finding that the content stopped being contentiousness between my first and second revert? Because if it didn't change, then the above exception applies.Legend of 14 (talk)22:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions toE-Laws. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit needs more sources to establish notability.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asList-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Hello, please stop tagging user sandboxes that do not use the AfC submission or article wizard templates, as they are not eligible for G13 deletion. I've declined several of your nominations for this reason, as they do not meet theWP:G13 criteria. If these templates have not been added, a user space draft can essentially remain indefinitely.Hey man im josh (talk)18:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
The userpages said they did use the Article wizard template. Is there aplacepage that shows the article wizard placeholder, so I can compare it for future reference?@Hey man im josh:Legend of 14 (talk)18:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
About ths MfDs: G13 isn't good for bringing up directly as the rationale of a deletion nomination in a full deletion process, because it's an abstracted and mechanical criterion that is totally opaque as to the supposed underlying deletion-worthy problem with the page. It's good in the speedy deletion track but isn't functional in the full discussion track. Perhaps simply let admins apply G13 mechanically as they do and don't concern yourself with G13. That's what everyone else does pretty much. It doesn't seem like there's anything to be gained by making manual G13 interventions. Sincerely —Alalch E.16:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
If you want to propose sanctions against me go to ANI. Otherwise, I will not impose arbitrary rules on the CSD criteria I will and won't apply.Legend of 14 (talk)16:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Draft nominations in general
What do you expect will be the benefit to Wikipedia from deleting useless drafts? What harm are they doing by simply being 39,535 entries, or some other large number of entries, in a list of names of pages that nobody looks at? Nominating them for deletion requires a small but non-zero amount of volunteer time that the editors at MFD could otherwise be doing reviewing drafts or improving references in articles or gnoming categories or whatever work they do in Wikipedia, or working on their day jobs. How will getting rid of these useless stubs benefit the encyclopedia overall?Robert McClenon (talk)16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Well I've found that most abandoned user drafts either are valuable for the encyclopedia or could be valuable to the encyclopedia if they are transferred to people with the right skill set. I think getting rid of user drafts without potential, from inactive users, especially with the large backlog right now, makes it easier to find and deal with the drafts with potential.Legend of 14 (talk)03:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Moritoriko was:
This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Nothing in this article shows that he is a notable athlete let alone that there is sourcing for any of the claims of notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Nick Guggemos and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Hello,Legend of 14!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Moritoriko (talk)07:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Please explain why you disagree with the final comment, "I trust the closer can see that at least 3/4 of participants coalesced onAberdeen Group plc after much back and forth."
Please explain why, if there is indeed no consensus, this should not move back to the status quo ante name ofAbrdnAbrdn, where it was prior to the move of 11:02, 13 March 2025.
Curiously, Dormskirk did not participate in that RM discussion, though they commented in both the sections above and below it.
HERE is the prior discussion from 4 March, when the company announced their latest name change, to 13 March, when the page was moved.
A company employee recognized that "Aberdeen group" was currently redirecting to anentirely separate page, and suggested that would leave "Aberdeen group plc" or possibly "Aberdeen group (Investment Company)" as potential article titles.
One editor boldly moves the page to a (company) disambiguation, and gets promptly reverted.
Another editor saysWe can remove the redirect from "Aberdeen group" if there is a consensus to go with that option. then waits less than 24 hours for a response, gets no response, and then just moves the page, while completely ignoring eighteen wikilinks from that title to the other topic. You're OK with that kind of page move becoming the basis of thestatus quo ante title?wbm1058 (talk)02:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I've closed three other discussions that were listed onWikipedia:Closure requests today, and know what a complicated mess discussions have typically become by the time they land there. Taking the necessary time to sort them out is appreciated. –wbm1058 (talk)02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
wbm1058 For the record I am also content with the move to Aberdeen Group plc. As explained on the article talk page (in the section above) "I really don't have strong views on this." I was trying to obtain consensus but that consensus unravelled. Best wishes,Dormskirk (talk)09:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:
This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Medium.com and faroutmagazine.co.uk are deprecated sources. Please replace then with sources passingWP:42Further citations are required, please. While the events may be notable you have not verified their notability. References are in part to future proof articles.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
Please do not dump prods or other nominations on articles that can be redirected to an obvious target, because that isWP:POINT. Just do aWP:BLAR on them.
Further, I should point out that Halsbury's Statutes, Current Law Statutes, Chitty's Statutes and Paterson's Practical Statutes, amongst other books, contain independent commentary amounting to significant coverage of many Acts of Parliament. Please do look at those books before claiming that an Act is not notable.
I should also point out that, because of the uncertainty created by the savings, a certain group of Acts usually resulted in a mountain of litigation, and endless periodical articles complaining about how awful those Acts were. So a search of law reports and legal periodicals would be necessary.
I can see that a certain pair of editors have been removing independent secondary sources from articles, and/or stuffing them with massive quantities of material from non-notable sources, but their edits don't reflect the better coverage available.James500 (talk)13:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Your message
I have read the message you placed on my talk page. I did not make any comments whatsoever about blind people in any edit summary. Please do not twist my words or put words into my mouth.James500 (talk)21:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
You made derogatory comments about my edits that were based on the fact that you thought I didn't have eyes, or couldn't use those eyes to see. I'm not twisting anything.
No, my comments ("Revert vandalism") implied that your eyes worked perfectly well and that you were dishonestly telling lies about what you had seen. When I made those comments, I was under the impression that your edits were vandalism. I would like to withdrawthat claim, which was made too hastily and on insufficient evidence.James500 (talk)21:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
?
I removed a 2018 bot message from an article talk, edit summary "dated". You found that too little. Understand. I should have said (as I normally do) "dated bot message", or what would you suggest. You reverted without an edit summary, interesting. - I came to the page to look at the result of the move request, and found that old useless thing in the way of finding it faster. Sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
please archive - I would not remove user comments, but tell me for whom this bot message will serve a function in an archive? --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Apart fromWP:DTR, you may have overlooked that the notice Gerda deleted contains this sentence: "Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals." Her action and edit summary seem wholly appropriate. --Michael Bednarek (talk)14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Dated is not an appropriate edit summary for removing an entire section. Your unsolicited advice about templates is not accepted. Have a good day.Legend of 14 (talk)15:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
You clearly have a lot to learn here. Yourcompetence is required or you are going to be blocked until it can be shown that you understand the guidelines and policies on here. The onus is on you to understand because a lot of your behavior is coming off as disruptive. –The Grid (talk)17:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Please stop placingTemplate:Notability on articles whose topics satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. The documentation for that template says "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources". Please do not redirect articles whose topics satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. Please perform an adequate search for sources before tagging or redirecting. Please do not base a decision to tag or redirect only on the basis of the sources cited in the article. You are tagging and redirecting too manyexceptionally notable topics, and your editing is becoming disruptive, regardless of why you are doing it. The Criminal Law Act 1967 and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, for example, easily satisfy GNG and should have been tagged withTemplate:Sources exist (because they do) and, if you really cannot be bothered to add them,Template:Independent sources (because they are not in the article yet).James500 (talk)16:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I didn't find sources, through a reasonable search. If you find that the sources do exist, you can remove the tag and add{{Refideas}} on the talk page.Legend of 14 (talk)16:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Did you look at the relevant volumes of the relevant editions of Halsbury's Statutes, Current Law Statutes, Butterworth's Annotated Legislation Service (eg ALS vol 276), Halsbury's Laws of England, Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Blackstone's Criminal Practice, Stone's Justices Manual, Blackstone's Magistrates Court, or any of the other mountain of books on English criminal law, virtually all of which are going to include both Acts in some detail? Did you look at Google Books, Google Scholar or the Internet Archive? What did you look at?James500 (talk)16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I have just come across a whole series of acts of parliament which you have nominated for deletion without consulting the main legal texts. You should have read Halsbury's, Butterworth's etc before making such nominations.Dormskirk (talk)16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Please slow down. You are creating a lot of work for people with greater knowledge and interest in these articles than you. You might find, along the way, that you learn something about the types of sources that belie these nominations, and learn from the opinions of those who pay attention to this class of AfD's.Also, slapping a citation-needed tag on someone's comment may feel satisfying in the moment, but doing so after you have been shown to have overlooked sources is hardly a convincing move (see alsoWP:BLUDGEON).Having said all that, it is troubling that you appear to be singling out articles created by @James500. While we should hesitate before accusing people of being vexatious or acting in bad faith (perWP:AGF) you should be aware that there is sanctionable conduct calledWP:HOUNDING which might apply to rapid-fire AfD's that appear to be aimed at a single good-faith editor, even if you think their reading of notability is unreasonably permissive.Oblivy (talk)06:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
User:Oblivy: As far as I can tell, most of the articles he has tagged or nominated for AfD were not created by me. Even where the articles were created by me, he seemed to be tagging them becauseUser:Hughbe98 had edited them. While there may be following, I do not think it is clearly directed at me, and I think it is more likely to be directed at Hugh.James500 (talk)11:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. Your user page is on my watchlist (I talk-page messaged you at some point, not sure why) so I was getting watched page notices a lot recently in addition to the law deletion sorting list.Oblivy (talk)12:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
About templates
You are continuing to engage inWP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that is rising towards the level ofWP:HARASSMENT. I have just seen you addTemplate:Unreferenced to the articleTreason Act 1429 instead of adding a reference to the article. 11 sources were cited in the AfD on the article, so you were capable of adding one of those sources to the article. This is the latest incident in a pattern of behaviour where you attempt to systematically criticise every single aspect of Act of Parliament articles, in every way that you can think of, while doing nothing to actually improve the alleged defects of those articles. The next time you see an Act of Parliament article that does not have references, please add at least one reference to that article, instead of addingTemplate:Unreferenced. Please do not endlessly stuff articles full of needless maintenance templates in an attempt to either force me or others to do the maintenance for you, or to make the articles look stupid.James500 (talk)21:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Adding a single maintenance tag to an article is not stuffing it full of needless maintenance templates. Adding{{Unreferenced}} to an unreferenced article is not a personal attack. I've never cited a book and I was scared I get it wrong, and you know that I can't afford to make any mistakes,WP:ANI#Legend of 14.Legend of 14 (talk)21:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
No-one cares if you cite a book "incorrectly" (in scare quotes, because there is no such thing on Wikipedia), because Wikipedia does not have ahouse style: See WP:CITESTYLE, which says "nearly any consistent style may be used". I do not believe that anyone would try to make an issue out of that at ANI.James500 (talk)22:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Someone got mad at me for asking a question to someone else (the person I asked the question to wasn't even mad). Someone got mad at me for banning another user from my talk page, when all they did was call me incompetent and threaten me. People are looking at reasons to be mad at me.Legend of 14 (talk)22:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
At this point, all I can say is thatI am not going to get mad at you for any of those things, and thatI am not looking for reasons to be mad.James500 (talk)22:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
If you do not know how to use a physical library and cite a non-internet reference you should entirely avoid statute articles. They require a somewhat high level of both legal and Wikipedia-editing expertise. Nobody would criticise you for not having that expertise, but you absolutely should not be stubbornly adding tags that reflect not an actual problem with the article but simply announce "this should be deleted as I don't have the expertise to improve it".MichaelMaggs (talk)22:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I know how to use a physical library, where did that come from?Unreferenced is absolutely a problem with articles, and you do not have to be some sort of expert to identify and tag it.Legend of 14 (talk)22:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, being unsure how to add a book citation to an article without references and adding the unreferenced top tag, ostensibly so that someone else might do it, is not really a problem. Let's keep a sense of proportion. More importantly, one should not cite books that someone told them support something, without having access to the source; an edit that adds a citation is personal attestation of verification of material. If you do not have access, you are faking the record.
That said, Legend of 14, what's the action plan for your gaining command of citing books? You may look at any article that has a book citation to see how it's done. You are solemnly promised that if you do it wrong, no harm will come your way. —Alalch E.23:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Hey, mate
Looking above I can see that you are in a number of disputes currently. I suggest that you remove the ANI positng you have made, you can delete my reply too, that's fine, if no one else has commented yet. You are going down a path of trying to run parts of the Wiki, when you don't have enough experience to be telling other people what to do. I can't believe you've nomm'd the Treason Act for deletion.
It looks like there is a theme to these disputes too. I suggest you take some time out and review them, and see if you can figure out why so many people are unhappy with you. Then work out how you can edit without getting into these disputes. Good luck.
Hi - I’m not sure if you know, but we have a greatadoption program that you might be interested in. If so, I’m happy to adopt you and/or enroll you into my adoption school; you are also free to contact any of the other adopters on that page too, if you wish. This message is just to let you know that this program exists; feel no pressure to take part. I know we’ve had our differences, but Iam currently teaching an adoptee who I’d given multiple final warnings and was close to taking toWP:ANI - and after adopting them, things are going surprisingly, very well -s o I think this could help you a lot toward continuing to be a constructive editor. Cheers.GoldRomean (talk)03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, a good message, but does the adoption program only applies tonew, yet committed Wikipedia editors? I see that the user has been editing for months, but I also see that they have been blocked for problematic behavior. If they are unblocked, it is best for them to find a mentor like what was offered to them(the subject of this talk page) above.ToadetteEdit (talk)15:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah, as you said, they got blocked. Thought they could use some guidance with regards to civility. Either way, happy to provide some type of "unblock mentorship" as if needed. But oh, well.GoldRomean (talk)16:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Some Trees, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
In case you decide to return, you need to take avery thorough read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before appealing this block, because, frankly speaking, at this point it's clearyou don't understand how Wikipedia works but clearly believe that you do, and that is why you are blocked. Your good faith isn't in question, but again: read up on the policies and guidelines and understand what they say, then request unblocking. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Please explain why this action was chose, instead of the other proposed action of a topic ban from nominating on the noticeboards in question. Also please outline how the the process in the explanatory essay you cite waseven followed, particularly regarding "any advice or instruction in how to do things correctly" (WP:CIR). Also please cite the exact policies and guidelines I contravened.Legend of 14 (talk)03:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Lo14, it is worth observing that an indef here is arguably a less onerous result than a TBAN. The Bushranger blocked you in their individual capacity as an admin, which means you need only take some time to reflect their observations above (and the voluminous insights you got in the ANI thread itself) and then convince TB or another admin that you can recognize the issues with your previous approach and demonstrate that they you can adopt a less problematic approach to your use of process. 'Indefinite' is not permanent, and with the right level of commitment, open-mindedness, and an honest effort at self-assessment, could be very short indeed. A TBAN, on the other hand, would likely have been with you for years at a minimum.On a tangential note, while it is not inappropriate to ask TB for further clarity on the issues they would like to see you address, so you can make a fulsome and good faith unblock request when you feel ready, the way you have asked that question above is not well-calculated to get a detailed response, since it comes off as a demand to justify the block as an a priori matter. That's not how this work: TB's block was clearly good faith, and did not come out of the blue, but rather on the back of a lot of expression of community frustration. However, they are also well known as even-tempered and someone who takes a tactful approach to their exercise of administrative prerogative. I am confident that if you re-ask the question without the tone implying that you are calling them to task, that they will give indications of where to start in better familiarizing yourself with policy, such as to enable you to identify where you went wrong and increase your likelihood of a successful unblock request.SnowRise let's rap09:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
To put it simply, you were blocked because your actions make it clear that you do not understand how Wikipedia works, yet youbelieve that you do, and thus you have become a time sink for the community. Thus, a block allows you to read up on policies and guidelines and actually understand them, without either feeling obligated to contribute otherwiseor further frustrating the community with good-faith but (speaking frankly) ill-conceived actions. Once you've internalized the polices and guidelines and agree to correctly follow them, you can request an unblock, and any admin who believes this is the case may unblock without need to 'touch base' with me first. Note though that you do need to show a good-faith effort to understand and follow policies and guidelines - just immediately requesting an unblock is unlikely to be successful. I'd specifically suggest reading up onWP:N and - as this was 'the last straw' as it were in some respects - the relevantdeletion policies. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
A suggestion to add to Bushranger's solid recommendations: read the discussions at the various noticeboards, including the archives, to get a feel for for how the community applies the policies and guidelines.Schazjmd(talk)21:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to second this observation, because, while I do not object to The Bushranger's exercise of a block here, I do feel like the piece you are missing is not to easily be found in any given policy or even combination of policies. A number of your mis-steps were found in areas that involve somewhat nuanced decisions that first-hand experience with organic discussions (rather than the community consensus distilled from such discussions and formalized in our policies) will serve you better in understanding. The reason you ran afoul of somewhat more of these issues than the average new editor, and ahead of your ability to adapt your approach through practical experience, is that you were being too cavalier about removing content and trying to regulate the conduct of others: two notoriously complicated and controversial areas of contribution. You'll want to be well versed on the behavioural norms for these issues as much as the black-letter wording of our policies before you return to them down the line, so Schaz's recommendation is well worth considering.SnowRise let's rap01:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Snow Rise, while I appreciate your efforts to guide editors who have found themselves in trouble. I read this paragraph twice and I'm still not sure I understand the points you were trying to make in the first half despite having two Masters' degrees and 13 years experience editing on this project. I encourage you to reiterate your advice, being less abstract and more direct so that an editor with less experience and knowledge than yourself can benefit from your guidance. Thank you for taking your time to help others.LizRead!Talk!08:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Liz, thank you for this observation: I agree that if the suggestions felt unclear to you, they are unlikely to be helpful to a new user. To try to put my advice in plainer terms, my concern is that learning the nuances of the particular rules that Lo14 fell afoul of requires a lot of experience, and that a new editor cannot get to full competency merely by reading the relevantWP:PAGs. While I was also surprised at the timing of this block in this case, I do not object to TB's exercise of administrative discretion. But it does put Lo14 in a bad position for resolving his deficiencies--and following the advice to read guidelines alone is unlikely to be sufficient to bring this user up to speed, such that they can avoid issues once they resume editing, especially if they go back to similar areas of contribution. Though part of my advice is that Lo14 probably should not go straight back to deletion or ANI/behavioural discussions once unblocked. In any event, that's why I was agreeing with Schazjmd: supplementing study of policy by reading relevant noticeboard and talk space discussions may be the only way for Lo14 to get a more detailed picture of these complicated areas, given that they cannot gain the same knowledge through direct editorial experience, being blocked. And even once unblocked, they should proceed again into those areas where their actions raised concerns only after a period of careful observation of how such processes work. Because, again, behavioural discussions and mass deletion are particularly tricky areas and should probably not be the first places where a new-ish editor gets in the habit of exercisingWP:BOLD action. They should rather wait upon heavy involvement with those activities until they have gained a baseline understanding of community standards for the relevant issues. I hope that's a less obtuse rendering of my advice.SnowRise let's rap20:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
This block is excessive. Some users on theANI thread supported a temporary topic ban related to deletion nominations, some users wanted to give me a chance to show I learned my lesson, few supported blocking at this time. Another administrator was "a bit surprised" by the block in the ANI thread. Blocking me from editing all Wikipedia pages, based on what I know understand were bad nominations on a few noticeboards is excessive and far above what is needed to stop any disruption. Before the block, I was already working to correct my disruption. I withdrew around 5 nominations on AfD after the ANI started. I have not nominated a new article for AfD since the ANI thread started. I recognize that I made a lot of nominations on articles I didn't know a lot about, and that was disruptive and something I shouldn't have done. I've learned my lesson.Legend of 14 (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Listing my concerns about another user's lack of edit summaries, was not an appropriate use of that noticeboard. I know this now, I won't be doing that again either.Legend of 14 (talk)16:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block is within admin discretion. How do you feel about a topic ban from proposing AfDs? And also, a topic ban from creating essays?PhilKnight (talk)16:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
It is probably not a good look to come back a day after claiming that you are no longer contributing anymore (and you were subsequently blocked). But I admire your decision to come back to Wikipedia. I doubt that this might be declined unless some sort of restrictions were proposed, but I (or others) will be willing to extend somewp:ROPE.ToadetteEdit (talk)08:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Advice from an involved non-admin. The block was not excessive. The case against you at ANI was that the disruptive AfD nominations were merely the latest incident in a pattern of wasting community time with disruptive behavior that has been going on since at leastJanuary, across multiple venues not confined to AfD. Whileyour ANI thread was still open, you engaged in further disruptive behaviour by starting afrivolous ANI thread against Rich Farmbrough, and by writing a WP:POLEMICessay against EEng (now at MfD). The point is that ... after being asked to stop wasting community time (by Nil Einne and EEng in particular) ... you proceeded to waste community time with those two incidents. Your unblock request does not acknowledge any of this. Instead, your unblock request cherry picks comments from the ANI discussion in a way that presents you in a favourable light. At this point, I think your unblock request is likely to be declined. To have any chance of being unblocked, I think you would at least have to rewrite your request in a way that more accurately reflects how you really ended up being blocked. SeeWikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.James500 (talk)16:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
And even if this essay is not intended to attack others, the essay is rather in contrary to established policy and should be deleted.ToadetteEdit (talk)05:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Reply to Legend of 14: As others have pointed out, the essay originally included a link tothis diff by EEng, which wasremoved from the essay by Floquenbeam, on grounds that the inclusion of that link in the essay violated WP:POLEMIC. The inclusion of that link in the essay was certainly against EEng, and it indicated that the entire essay was primarily against EEng (having regard to the fact that the essay was written 22 minutes after EEng madethat edit during the altercation you were having with EEng at that time).James500 (talk)14:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I can assure that is not the case. I have been dissatisfied with the wayWP:Civility is enforced for months, long before I ever interacted with that user, as indicated by the AN thread you linked too.Legend of 14 (talk)14:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, and apologies for being late to the party as I have been away. Lo14 reverted so many pages I was involved in improving that I (and others) felt that I was being targeted.
Lo14's edits genuinely made me reconsider contributing to the Wikipedia project. Although I've made what I consider a lot of edits, I still feel I am a relatively new editor, so I'm rebuilding my confidence after this incident.Hughbe98 (talk)15:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd suggest reading, among other things, SnowRises's post, the last message in the topic above, (And James500's message directly above this post) and re-write your unblock request in a way that shows you understand the concerns discussed at ANI. It was not merely 'bad nominations. It would help your case to remove the first four sentences entirely (and the fact thatthose are the first four sentences is an example of why I suggest re-reading both of those posts).MilesVorkosigan (talk)16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Please agree to the deletion of all of your project space essays (the "Wikipedia:" ones). You have created multiple, but you were not well-positioned to be writing Wikipedia essays. It is interesting how you were writing about your experiences as a new editor, but it was not appropriate to format every such new writing as a new project space essay. There are standards for content in the project space and your essays do not meet them. They will be deleted. I have nominated two for deletion, and I will proceed with nominating the rest. You can save other editors a significant amount of time by saying here that you agree to the deletion. Then I will tag them with a suitable template and they will be speedily deleted underWP:G7, without the need to discuss the deletion of each. Therefore, please simply write "I agree". This is not about your user space essays. Sincerely —Alalch E.11:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusingwarning or blocking templates, as you did toUser talk:76.64.222.10. Doing so is a violation ofWikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use theuser warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at ourintroduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia.Giving a warning for an edit that happened two weeks ago is pointless. Secondly, I do use edit summaries, just not all the time. Edit summaries are strongly recommended but they are not mandatory.76.64.222.10 (talk)03:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Legend of 14/Civility is optional, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Legend of 14/Civility is optional and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofUser:Legend of 14/Civility is optional during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Robert McClenon (talk)03:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The redirectWikipedia:WikiProject Canlaw has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 14 § Wikipedia:WikiProject Canlaw until a consensus is reached.—CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})18:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)