Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please sign your posts at the bottom of my talk page.

Hello, Anonymuss User, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Chengyu (disambiguation). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Leschnei (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hi Anonymous User, I made some changes to Chengyu. Disambiguation pages have different rules from other types of pages. For example, entries should have only one blue link and there should (usually) be no piping. This is so that readers can quickly scan the page to find the article that they are interested in. You can read more at WP:DAB and MOS:DAB]]. Leschnei (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the distinguish template in Beta for me. Anonymuss User (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To make the template work the way you intended, you'd have needed {{distinguish|text=Betta, the variety of fish}}. However, I don't think someone looking for the fish will need an explanation for the misspelling, much less a link to "fish". Compare Template:Distinguish/doc#When to use. Huon (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for helping me out. Anonymuss User (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonymuss User. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonymuss User. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Anon. U. 14:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anonymuss User placing theatre after Noh etc is not creating incorrect information .Noh is Noh theatre in theatrical lexicography, but I am willing to accept your intervention {Pacific497 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific497 (talk • contribs)

@Pacific497: Sorry, I'm blocked right now. Feel free to revert my edits. Anon. U. 20:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Apparently I have been blocked due to the suspicion that I operate multiple accounts for prohibited purposes. This block seems to be in error; Anonymuss User is the only account that I have ever edited from. I rarely, if ever, edit while logged out. If you think that I operate more than one account, it is untrue. It goes against my personal philosophy. Some of the listed alternative accounts seem to be owned by my classmates at school, judging by their usernames. I usually edit at school; perhaps the suspicion stems from shared IP usage? My whole school shares a single IP address, which probably indicates that there are multiple editors in my school. “Behaviorally, there are obvious similarities between different accounts, less obvious ones, and some almost none (although the similarities become more obvious when logged-out edits are taken into consideration).” Could you please elaborate on that? Could you please provide examples of the logged-out edits? I would like to examine what suggests an alleged correlation between me and the listed accounts. No matter what, I will not let false suspicion end my mission to help mitigate vandalism and abuse by Recent Changes Patrolling. I do not wish to have a negative reputation built around me just because of a misunderstanding. You are severely mistaken in blocking me, and I wish to be unblocked so that I can continue patrolling Wikipedia. Anon. U. 20:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC) (P.S: I read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and it actually says that the chances of me getting unblocked are slim due to the block being for suspected sockpuppetry. If you are not willing to accept this unblock request, is it still possible for me to continue removing vandalism in some way?)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per discussion below.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Do you know LFlamel?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Yes; he's a classmate who I used to chat with on Discord. Anon. U. 13:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide you with examples of logged-out edits because it would violate policy. I am disturbed about disputes between you and CLCStudent. Can you elaborate on that and on whether you know any of the accounts in Group 2 at the SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? The reinstatement of vandalism on Friendly fire was unintentional; that was a good faith edit. When CLCStudent instructed me to leave the article alone, I obeyed.

@Bbb23: And about the Group 2 users, I only recognize User:NoOneCaresTBH from User:LFlamel. I don't recognize any others. Anon. U. 14:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to consult with another CheckUser about your case. I still have some concerns, but they can't be addressed publicly. It's the holidays, so you may not hear from me quickly. Please be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; I can wait. Anon. U. 14:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the holidays, the other CheckUser was available. I'm going to unblock you but with a warning. Both the other CheckUser and I are persuaded that you edited abusively while logged out. If that happens again, you risk being reblocked. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody with Huggle please help me revert the edits of NinetyNinja34 from Undead Nightmare, and the unconstructive edits on Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy? Anon. U. 14:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a plot to a game seems like a reasonable thing to do, but I don't think it rises to the level of vandalism necessary to take any action. You don't have to roll back their edits if you disagree with them; simply remove the section. However, it is best to discuss the matter with them on the talk page, and maybe cross-post to WT:VG to get opinions from interested editors.

As for the Anchorman issue, I've reverted their edits and blocked the accounts.

If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Z163[reply]

Hi. You left a message on my talk page about the plot summary of Undead Nightmare. I have tried to make it as brief as possible, but I would like the page to still have a summary of its plot. If you have anything to say, please write a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyNinja34 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the filters "human (not bot)" and "page creations" selected on Recent Changes, but I still receive many messages from HostBot. How do I fix this? ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me it appears that HostBot doesn't have the "bot flag" which marks edits as being made by a bot. I can't quite tell why; I have asked the bot operator. Huon (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this isn't HostBot's fault but a bug in the MediaWiki software. ClueBot NG, for example, is also affected. And yes, HostBot does have the bot flag which it should have; it's just not displayed correctly. Bug report. Huon (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, things are even more tricky than that. Whether a bot gets marked as bot on Special:RecentChanges doesn't depend on the user right but on whether it uses a special parameter when it edits. Either this is indeed a bug, or HostBot doesn't use this parameter (which IMO it should use). I'll let the experts figure it out. Huon (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cool tool for doing what I often do. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only SPI clerks are permitted to move cases. Please don't do so again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Are you a clerk? If so, please help move this case to Gobulls45. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've truly made a mess of that report. You're fortunate that I haven't just deleted it and told you to start over and do it right. Once you file a report, you can't change the master mid-stream. Instead, keep the original master, list the older account in the suspected sock list, and ask a clerk to move the case to the correct master. Also, a report can have only one status. You stuck in two, one to request a CU and one to get a clerk's attention. All I've done to your latest masterpiece is to change it to clerk status. Try not to touch the report until after it's been dealt with by a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. In the future, you can make a request of a clerk in the body of the report, but you cannot change the case status to "clerk". The only time you can change the status is to add "CU" to request a CU. You're also supposed to explain why you're requesting a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Sorry for making a bad report. Learned my lesson, won't do it again.

(Off topic) What's the user warning template for unauthorized removal of references? I can't seem to find it on Twinkle. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one, but I'm not an expert in that area. There's a way of customizing Twinkle, but I've never done it. Perhaps someone could help you at the Teahouse.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted an edit on Chew Magna by a user adding detail about a tomb in the church. The edit was good and I will add references for it. A bit of checking before reverting the edit should have been able to find this.— Rod ^talk 17:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have now reverted me twice on a merge which has the unanimous consensus of three users and has been under discussion for the requisite period of time. This is in relation to 2018 cryptocurrency crash and Talk:Cryptocurrency bubble. Kindly explain yourself. R2d232h2 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either give a valid reason why the articles should not have been merged or undo your last edit. As it stands, @Smallbones, Jajhill, Power~enwiki, Jtbobwaysf, and Џ: and myself support the merge, and your objection after the fact is the only dissent. There is clear consensus to merge. I would rather have your response before escalating this to the administration, but I am prepared to do that. R2d232h2 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@R2d232h2: OK, fine. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help at User talk:DigbyDalton, but in future please do not place block notices on users' talk pages. These templates are exclusively for the administrators placing the blocks, and we sometimes have good reason for not using the template or not notifying the account directly. As it happens you interrupted a notice I was placing for the user myself, and as a result I have removed your edit. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Џ 23:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]