Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ashleyyoursmile was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Doraemon: Robot War and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Doraemon: Robot War, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ashleyyoursmile! 17:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ExclusiveEditor! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ashleyyoursmile! 17:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you changed my edit why? It was correct. I personally and factually know that what i wrote is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothisismyaccount10 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellothisismyaccount10: That is not correct. You just changed name of Takapuna Grammar School to Takapuna Grandma School which is not the correct name, for reference you can just see the official website of the school. Hope you understand, Thank You. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your edits to doraemon related articles. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 04:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianOtaku: Thank You for the Bubble Tea 😀 ExclusiveEditor (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have a question about an edit I made on the Ultron article that was reverted. I made note of Ultron's partial appearance in Spider-Man: Homecoming. An Ultron head appeared as a cameo, which I believe should be noted. The appearance is factual. Why was the edit removed? I believe it should be returned. Articles like Valkyrie (Marvel Comics) make note of the character's role in a film they did not appear in, but whose role beyond the screen was mentioned. Should a character's appearance as a cameo in a film not be mentioned?Jmlopez03

@Jmlopez03: If any of your edit is reverted but you think that your edit was right then feel free to add the information again but do not forget go give a brief edit summary about what you did, why was the information important, and do provide a reference to justify that your edit is right. If you think that your edits to any page are reverted again and again, then do not get in to edit warring, go through Wikipedia:Edit warring to understand what edit warring is and how to handle it. If you have any question then feel free to ask it at Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! Thank You. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Draft has been expanded since last decline but referencing has not been improved. Additional references in independent and reliable sources are essential to demonstrate 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 resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Doraemon: Robot War and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Doraemon: Robot War, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 06:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Draft:Doraemon: Robot War you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Sorry for that, I will attribute the source next time I do so. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

im trying to update it but its stuck on march 15 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitopavlovivit: Sorry I don't understand what you want to say but I reverted you edit because it was disruptive. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Also see WP:CRYSTALBALL.

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 resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Taarak Mehta Kka Chhota Chashmah and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Taarak Mehta Kka Chhota Chashmah, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 07:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You incorrectly reverted an edit I made. The small 'controversy' section I removed didn't contain anything controversial at all. The sources don't say much at all about rhizome and don't reflect why this was controversial for the Rhizome organization. Please restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.88.90 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IP 189.217.88.90 on this one. Rhizome's comment about the artist and 2014 exhibit in question appears to be limited to a Tweet. That does not justify a "Controversy" section that goes far beyond any action by Rhizome. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@189.217.88.90:@David notMD: I did not see what was on the controversy section at the time of reverting because it was the first edit of an IP Address, which is usually made for vandalizing, but it is ok to see the content. Also I did not understood much from the edit summary and thus I reverted the edit, in a hope that if the blanking was correct it gets reverted again. I was not 100% sure about that edit at that time. I am happy that it is reverted now for a good reason. Thank You ExclusiveEditor (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is BRD: be Bold in editing, if Reverted, take to Discussion (Talk). Always try to avoid edit warring, which is officially described as three reverts of the same content within 24 hours, which can lead to the offending editors being blocked for 31 hours. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did explain my edit. It is off topic because it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Perhaps it is just a bad choice of quote from the cited article, but "regard[ing] critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves" is not a violation of free speech, disturbing as it may be. 216.8.185.53 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you on this one 216.8.185.53. I think you have a good point. The quote seems very misplaced. ExclusiveEditor check this case out another time. TigerScientist Chat 15:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@216.8.185.53:, @TigerScientist: That revert is reverted. And that is good. Thank You. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: make sure to use @Someone: instead of someone. Right now it links to re. Also as said in your response, I can revert it? TigerScientist Chat 04:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TigerScientist: You are right, I know that, It was just a small error which made me type [[ ]] instead of {{ }}. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: Happens to me too sometimes. Nice new signature by the way. TigerScientist Chat 14:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:110.174.96.199 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You appear to have warned the IP user for this edit, which you had reverted. The IP's edit was entirely correct: it was you who were wrong. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 and 110.174.96.199: Sorry for that one, actually that time I quickly searched for what's the right spelling and unfortunately I misunderstood a source and reverted that edit, thank you for reverting it. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ExclusiveEditor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Taarak Mehta Kka Chhota Chashmah, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ExclusiveEditor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Big Picture (Indian TV series), 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) 06:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ExclusiveEditor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Big Picture".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 4 January 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was "not constructive" here? None of the info was removed, simply arranged in a more legible manner. Plus added the name of the famous composer/dramaturgist who cast the 1972 theatrical production.2607:FEA8:571F:6B40:386A:55F2:C0F3:206C (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2607:FEA8:571F:6B40:386A:55F2:C0F3:206C: See, what I think is that you should use the 'Edit Summary' option provided to you as it makes you look more legitimate. Don't get in an Edit War and do the edits you want. Thank You. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have asked for article protection. Thank you for that. I'm worried about going over 3rr with it. Knitsey (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knitsey: Clearly, they are sockpuppets of Keminet or even a longer chain of sockpuppets who may be paid or supporters of the politician. We should avoid edit warring but this may be an exception for clear vandalism? You know better as you are more experienced. Thank You for concerns. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at 3rr, removing content plus adding obvious promotional content isn't edit warring but there are always grey areas...so I'm trying to avoid it. Hopefully it will be protected, I can clean it up and find some suitable references. I'm too tired right now. Knitsey (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knitsey: Sure, its also my time to get away for now, so next time we see the page, it might be full of bad changes (unless it gets the protection). Thank You. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:46, 15 October 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced my update on her birth & middle name with entry from the original image of the birth index on Ancestry. The previous source used the deaths index to source her birth, so the source I have provided is superior. I also have her birth certificate which gives the same spelling of her surname as it appears in the births index and her parents' names. Other documents also give the spelling of her middle name as Keer, NOT Kerr. I am baffled as to why you would reject an inferior source over s more accurate one.

Patch&Missy Patch&Missy (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patch&Missy: I have started discussion on talk page, and removed the middle name from article for now. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented

Just to let you know, full time national servicemen in Singapore are known as NSFs according to CMPB.

115.66.88.137 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@115.66.88.137: It could be confusing for people out of Singapore. Maintain simplicity. However, I agree that it is better to use NSFs. I have reverted my edit. Thank You for clarification. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTBITE

Remember: "Do what's right; don't bite. Being a friend is all right!" BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackOrchidd: You can't, at the same time, say you are newbie and also enforce your interpretation of Wikipedia policies and edit radically like you did at Smriti Irani. The way you shoved off an editor with over 100,000 edits, shows that you either disregard community consensus and would like to edit in authoritarian way. On your talk page, you carefully removed my warning with reasoning 'housecleaning', a move which I welcomed here, however which, according to you, was a bite. Now that's not a bite for sure considering I have seen many instances where experienced editors have spoken not so sweet, like I've on your talk page. Your editing style seems to be problematic, and that just requesting your block or starting a case against you, rather notifying about it to you, is what I truly believe would've been biting. With best regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smriti_Irani&diff=1211439811&oldid=1210384206 this is normal edit as per WP:CSECTION, calling my normal edits as radical is WikiBullying. Consider this as second warning. One more adventure and you will be taken to admins noticeboard. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackOrchidd: Are you threatening me? Admin's noticeboard is a place to discuss incidents, not a place where you put a name, and the user is blocked. Calm down, and read WP:FUN to lighten yourself. I am not saying that you are a vandal a paid editor who is doing biased editing and you should get a global site ban, no! I am just telling you that I disagree with you on some points, which I have backed with Wikipedia guidelines. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Adventuring to keep Wikipedia clean. Discuss. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Note that all warnings I issued you are pre-built templates for twinkle. I did not issue you 3rd level warning even when you have already received multiple prior ones, because I thought you are not editing unconstructively on purpose. Also you should have discussed with me about your edits below warnings than remove them and say that I am biting you. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 10:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Reddyanus problematicus you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Reddyanus problematicus for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Doramon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12 § Doramon until a consensus is reached. I did not nominate it. I am completing the process for an IP editor who has not followed the instructions correctly. DrKay (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making photography 41.121.80.197 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @41.121.80.197:, I did not get what you mean. If you want to upload photos, see: WP:Uploading images. For further questions, visit WP:Teahouse, a friendly place for new editors to ask questions regarding Wikipedia. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

ExclusiveEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To the admin reviewing this unblock request, I was having no one doubt me for this, but I myself felt a sense of wrongness as I now had become sensible enough as an editor, and to stop the hypocrisy of warning other users for their bad action while continuing my own. All the reason and stuff of why my previous account was blocked and how what I have learned and how I plan to edit Wikipedia constructively if unblocked can be found at User:ExclusiveEditor/Unblock Request,Confession or in very short at User:ExclusiveEditor/Unblock Request,Confession(short). I recognize the mistake I made as User:Adishere and also accept that I was not in a very good circumstance when things became bad there. The only reason I started this acc. is because I wanted to edit in good faith but was not very familiar with Wikipedia as I am now. I always possessed good faith on this account, and so will I continue to have. I recognize this account as the original now, and Adishere and Trialedit can be considered as socks if I am unblocked, and they may remain blocked for, if that is the decision. Per [[1]], I am also submitting an unblock request at User:Adishere(I can't, I don't remember the password) so if I am unblocked I can make this a legitimate sock and start clean here(favorably at the same edit count). ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly not good faith. Good faith would not be illicitly setting up a WP:SOCK to WP:EVADE the block on your original account. Given that you've demonstrated a lack of good faith, probably your only option now is WP:SO. That requires six months with zero edits. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2024 (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.

@Yamla: I did not possess good faith when I created this account to do constructive edits. If I still do not have had good faith, why would I announce to everyone the mistake my past did? Am I being punished for acts of my past, three years ago? As surely this block is not to prevent any disruption I am going to cause. I always possessed good faith with this acc. and as for evasion, it was due to wrong interpretation of Wikipedia's gf policy my then young mind did, which I now have corrected, and that is why I confessed. If I am not allowed to type this on talk page during the block, I apologies and if not unblocked, ready to get compelled by standard offer as a punishment/ or to prevent disruption I may cause, which I could never. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yamla: Not to be overly pedantic, but I think "good faith" in this context means well-intentioned, which I actually think ExclusiveEditor is. That's not to say that they haven't still violated WP:SOCK through block evasion, regardless of the nature of their edits on this account, so I won't contest your decline. But I think it's inaccurate to say that they weren't acting in good faith. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't an accidental mistake. This user knew about WP:SOCK, having been caught violating that in the past. This was a deliberate decision to continue violating Wikipedia's policy, a decision they took days after being caught violating exactly that policy the previous time. I don't believe that shows good faith. However, Kurtis, your position appears to be "yeah but apart from that..." and there's definitely some truth to that. --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla I was kid back then, also busy with travelling and too many thoughts then to learn that all, so still surely I was bad faithed (not evil) then bot now the faith clean and good, I assure is more clean than many non blocked users, or else why will tell everyone truth, to open another sock? (ping @OhanaUnited:)
Blocks are used only and only to prevent further disruption and I am afraid you are either using this as a punishment for bad faith I shown earlier or you think I am still evil faithed.
Also, at max you can say I showed traces of bad faith till the moment I did not confess, but what disruption and bad faith am I going to cause now? 1) Do you think I am opening new socks, no, also the entire range under which my IP falls is also under blocked. 2) Am I going to vandalize Wikipedia now? 3) I am going to get evil happiness by causing what type of disruption as you say I am not good faithed (now as per WP policy).

You may or may not reply this, and may treat this as a read only comment or unblock request. With good regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Just to be clear, I do think that EE knowingly violated WP:SOCK in creating their current account. Block evasion isn't a hard concept to grasp, even if EE finds it bureaucratic in application. My position is better described as a different interpretation of what "good faith" means than an emphasis on the good contributions that they've done since creating this account; to me, the fact that they genuinely want to be a productive contributor means that they're acting in good faith. (Although, now that I've read the Wikipedia article about "good faith", perhaps I've been using a mistaken definition of the term for the majority of my life, as it does seem to entail more than merely being well-meaning.) Of course, having good intentions isn't always enough—that's why we have an essay about how competence is required, and why it's still commonly cited to this day (as far as I'm aware). I think in this case that the standard offer is more of a formality, a means of getting EE to prove that they're willing to follow the rules, rather than merely taking them at their word that it serves us no benefit to keep him blocked. And I can see the argument for both sides. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to say something here. I endorse Yamla's decline of the user's unblock request. I endorse the extension of the standard offer, although if EE continues as they have, I would extend it, at least until six months from their last edit here. I also endorse Yamla's finding that the socking, which occurred shortly after EE's other accounts were blocked, was not in good faith. @EE, good faith does not equate to evil. In this instance your decision to evade your block rather than request an unblock, was a deliberate choice you made knowing that you were violating policy. Your contention that your edits with the EE account were not disruptive is not a legitimate defense. Do you know how many socks create new accounts and then claim "but all my edits are constructive"? It would require a major change in policy to accept that as an excuse. Your claim that a confession somehow makes everything all right is also illegitimate. Many socks confess. The reasons for confessions vary, but I see it all the time.
  If you are really now as mature as you claim, I urge you to stop fighting to get yourself unblocked now and come back in six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bbb23: Not bad. Also I am not inclined towards an unblock now, as that time is necessary for me to accelerate in real life. Appreciate you clarification, however I am not using any socks now to disrupt, so block feels bad, but don't have any problem. See everyone 6-9 months later.

  @HapHaxion: Me myself confessing to block evasion some time after reverting your edits is a coincidence, and my concern for your edits are legitimate. I appreciate you explaining your edits, and not ignore me, as a block on me doesn't make me inferior in Wikipedia's process. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have to accept the standard offer and this edit just prolongs that 6 month time period, but I think it is important to clarify few things here. @NoobThreePointOh:, I have already acknowledged all of mistakes and what I learned and other things at stretch at User:ExclusiveEditor/Unblock Request,Confession, and I am not here just to apologies if I have already done that. @Bbb23:, @Lavalizard101: or anyone opposing, I think your points of appeal are indeed cogent and valid, but for what? I understand Bbb23's concerns of unblocking this account setting a dangerous precedent, and that many socks say they only edited constructively, but how many of them themselves came front and put a notice on noticeboard of them evading a block and putting effort to write this long of a explanatory page in one go and then make a summary for those with short time, that scrutinizes their past moves? I know that the confession does not make all things right, but what makes everything right then? A 6 months of silence period? Will that enlighten me of something I am currently unaware? And why should it be made right in the first place, or that is standard offer going to make things right for me and Wiki? I broke rules unknowingly for which I was not even warned, I then with GOOD faith of mine, bad faithed for stick with rules guys (kind of which I am now) constructed a new account. Also there are stretches of inactivity on this account for months, because whenever I got free time I used it to improve Wikipedia, forgetful of any guilt of having an block evaded. Even in past few days I found so many errors, red links, typos, mistakes while reading Wikipedia which I could have corrected with IPs, but chose not to, because I am not 'any other careless guy on internet' but decided to go straight.
I would just say that I am not commenting here because I want anyone to unblock me, but me myself as an independent editor see this as something going wrong here. No one who opposes my unblock is directly addressing the 'preventive not punitive' policy, mostly either because they have thoughts that it would be better not to implement it here and rather their intuition of letting me off for 6 months would be better, just like I followed my intuition of creating this account for which I am blocked or for reasons they chose not to elaborate. I think that even that point should be discussed, and nothing should be predetermined. I would have hugged SO if I was caught, but I was never.
I don't see this discussion as just an unblock request of me, but a discussion on where few think that a rule is applicable and others think not. Thanks. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know that if I must be punished, why sanctions are not used, and a block directly. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I think that this edit concerns to thread related to me, and your edit summary is "remove comment by sock". If by chance you are connecting it to me, that IP is not related to me at all. I am surprised that their location is near me, but I am not them. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I don't think the IP has anything to do with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: Going by the “drug user” analogy, I am not addicted to socking. Rather it would be that I am to some extent addicted to editing and getting involved in Wikipedia, and for that purpose I drugged myself once with black evasion few years ago, and I categorise that as a single bad action. Here I take block evasion as a single specific action that I committed few years ago and not a stretch of shoddy activity. Rather it was the guilt of that one action I performed years ago which culminated and made me confess of it now. The only policy I felt I violated was block evasion (as block evasion is not possible without socking) which I never understood proper enough from my heart until now. Also I am sure enough many editors here I have came across carry more residue on their nose than I had. I don’t even drink wiki-alcohol now. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 05:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think that I will sock again after this, even if my account is unblocked? Or that I will do bad actions? I will not even if not unblocked. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 05:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have unblocked you due to the consensus at ANI. Welcome back. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ingenuity: Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry. I do have a reference:

https://urnow.richmond.edu/features/article/-/22636/journalism-professor-s-acclaimed-book-recalls-washington-d.c.-siege.html?utm_source=as&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=features-story

But I'm not sure how to format it. It's a crucial mistake on the page, though: 149 hostages were NOT killed.

71.66.66.26 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ExclusiveEditor. I noticed that you linked a copy of Clayden et al.'s Organic Chemistry when you replied today at the Science Ref Desk. Please delete those links immediately: I don't think that this book is out of copyright and we are not allowed to link here to copyright violations like that. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: I sure would, can you just explain in concise why you think it is copyright violation? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for now, as immediate action was needed. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The page after the title page says very clearly "© Jonathan Clayden, Nick Greeves, and Stuart Warren 2012" and "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law". This is standard for all textbooks, despite the fact that someone willing to infringe copyright law has gone ahead and uploaded it to a blog. We should strive to maintain high standards! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "strive..." is codified by the WP:ELNEVER guideline. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... and that's a policy not a guideline! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a policy not to violate copyright on Wikipedia itself, but the instruction not to link to other copyright-infringing sites is part of the external-links guideline. ExclusiveEditor, feel free to ignore this digression about Wiki technical details:) DMacks (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Actually what I meant was that the pdf at that website could've been original (i.e. legal as in permission taken from the publisher). Should it still not be linked? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Push-pull train#Israel you recently changed Alstom to Alsthom in a photo's caption. The problem with that is that the same company used both names at different times, removing the -h- in 1998. AFAICT that photograph was taken in 2007 or 2008 (i.e. after the change) but that train may have been delivered to Israel Railways as soon as 1996 (before the change), so I'm not sure what to do. However, the company name in the first paragraph of text next to the picture has remained without the -h-, creating a discrepancy between the text and the illustration. IMHO you're the one best placed to weigh whether it's better to remove the -h- or to add it but I think that the section text and the photo caption ought to agree. — Tonymec (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonymec: Sorry I forgot to reply you. I will reply you soon. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonymec: Please bring reliable sources, or discuss it on talk page. Thank you. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: Well, IIUC all necessary references about that company's change(s) of name can be found on its wiki page, Alstom. However what most disturbs me is the discrepancy between "Alsthom" with -h- under the photo and "Alstom" without -h- in the text. If the company had constantly used either one or the user, I could have corrected it myself ; but in this case I'm not sure which one is better, except that I have a feeling that the spelling ought to be the same in both places. — Tonymec (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonymec: Then either you can let it remain the way it is, or discuss little deeper at the relevant talk page. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snoeng Temples, 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 now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ajay Mathur, Former Director-General, International Solar Alliance (ISA).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 20:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ExclusiveEditor! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Request for rollback, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have taken this job now, umm, great! I know bots don't respond -). ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 05:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

erm... have we met before? —KiranBOT (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: My god! I know you, but also Muninnbot who used to first deliver this messages. It may be that my this teahouse question which led to this discussion somehow made the baton of teahouse message delivery task get passed on to you! ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:48, 16 November 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) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your series of edits to the 2024 Sri Lankan parliamentary election article. I would like to draw your attention to an edit made on 18 November 2024, where you added content to the section titled 'Results' (Old revision and Difference between revisions).

The references you included to support your edit contained several CS1 maintenance issues (WP:CS1 and CS1 maintenance), which were consistently flagged through CS1 maintenance messages when using the 'Preview' (H:PREVIEW) feature before finalising edits. I kindly request that you avoid creating such errors, as correcting them is both time-consuming and tedious (WP:EDC).

Additionally, you cited a reference from The New York Times, which is behind a paywall (WP:PAYWALL) and requires a subscription. This limits accessibility for many Wikipedia users. To address this, you could consider using an archived version of the reference, which would make it accessible to all. You can find supported web archive services here WP:WEBARCHIVES. Alternatively, using reports from equally reputable and freely accessible sources could be considered.

I hope you understand my concerns and will take them into account to ensure more effective contributions in the future. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QEnigma: Hello! Can you tell which CS1 errors? I am unfamiliar with those. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I used wrong citation style than one already in use in the article? If so, I am really sorry for that, and can you advice me on how to identify what style an article is using (because I don't know how different styles look in particular). Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: Hello, thank you for your reply. Regarding the query you raised about the CS1 maintenance messages I referred to, these are system-generated notices on Wikipedia that highlight errors or missing information in Citation Style 1 (CS1) templates (WP:CS and WP:CS1). They help editors ensure proper citation formatting and standardisation.

Please revisit the edit in question (links provided in the earlier post), extract the four references you added to the 'Results' section of the article, and analyse their structure in your sandbox. The references were from The New York Times (paywall), The Hindu, Al Jazeera, and AP News. Of these, only the AP News reference did not generate a maintenance message. Below, I have included an example (NYT) for your reference.

{{Cite web |last=Waravita |first=Pamodi |date=15 November 2024 |title=Sri Lankan Leader’s Leftist Coalition Wins Elections |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/world/asia/sri-lanka-election.html |url-access=registration |url-status=live |website=[[The New York Times]]}}

The |url-status= parameter is set to 'live', which causes a maintenance message. Details about this can be found at Help:CS1 errors, [2] and [3]. By default, Citation Style 1 and 2 error messages are visible to all readers, while maintenance messages are hidden. To view maintenance messages in your account, please follow the guidelines provided at Controlling error message display section.

Your citation style should align with Wikipedia's general guidelines. You are free to develop your own style within these parameters. Different editors and articles often employ varying styles. I recommend reviewing the articles I have mentioned, along with other related material, to enhance your understanding. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QEnigma: Thank you for explaining. I have also enabled to view maintenance messages now, and correct them wherever I see them. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]