Thanks for your comment about the restricted Phab task. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm --WikiUser1234945--. I noticed that in this edit to Nicholas Lavender, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my unsigned comment and adding the template. I appreciate it. --Yamla (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I honestly don't know why "five tides makes a timestamp instead of a signature" is a feature, I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it that wasn't an accident. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I am the renamed NotReallySoroka who seeks to reach out to you since you seem to be the Oxford IP. I would like to write back to you to address your April ANI comments...

Although I would not have dug up editor contributions like you did back there, in hindsight I understand why you made your ANI comments. I also thank your subsequent brevity and (increased) politeness as demonstrated by your response to my past SPI on TCG.

I don't have the best experience with the notion of competence as it relates to Wikipedia, but I hope that you could acknowledge that my recent work at AfD, RfD, and WT:RAL, as seen through my contributions, is certainly a step towards whatever CIR problems I might have had.

I would appreciate your response to my message, and let me know if I sent this stuff to a wrong IP in your IP range.

Once again, thank you for your edits. Silcox (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silcox This is a very odd request, I'm not quite sure how to respond.

Well, lets start here by clearing up a misconception. I didn't go digging through your contributions to find examples, I mentioned stuff that I personally had seen you doing around the site; I've been here for a long time as an IP editor. I didn't bring up the MFD/DR/CSD/Blanking April Fool's stuff because I went looking for it, I brought it up because I remembered seeing the disruption spilling all over the place at the time.

You've done some fantastic content work while you've been here, e.g. you got Nick Solak to good article status, but you've run into a problem that a lot of our, how shall I put this... less mature, editors have - you want get involved in behind the scenes stuff and telling other people what to do despite not really having the knowledge or maturity to do so. Way back when you started editing I remember within about 100 edits you were asking questions at the teahouse about filing arbitration cases and writing your own policy and making rules; you were warned by admins at the time that this was red flag behaviour and that most people who started editing here doing that wound up blocked.

While you have improved a lot since those early days of editing there are still fairly recent situations where you end up being disruptive because you don't have the maturity to approach something in the correct manner. The mess with TheCurrenyGuy for example - it doesn't look like you were reverting their edits and removing their preferred spellings from articles because you had a consensus to do so or because it improved articles (in fact an RFC had found consensus for the opposite), it looks like you were doing it because you held a grudge, you thought you could use WP:BMB to justify the edits, and you knew that what you were doing wound them up - you were basically combating disruption with more disruption. You weren't using requests for adminship to evaluate whether someone would be a good admin, you were seemingly using it to "get revenge" on people you had disagreed with in the past.

These are the kind of issues that really just take time to resolve, I doubt you'll still have these problems in a few years. You have taken a step bad from the areas you were being disruptive in which is a really good sign and shows a great degree of self reflection. Have you considered working on content for a bit, perhaps try to get another baseball article to GA status? 192.76.8.66 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really requesting anything of you, Oxford IP. I just want to discuss my on-wiki troubles given your ANI comments.

I appreciate you clearing up my misconception and thank you for your detailed analysis of my behaviour. In particular, I agree with your notion that I reverted TCG's disruption "with more disruption" rather than more optimal methods.

I will be sure to look more towards content work :) Silcox (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cherwell (newspaper), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fear the deer 192.76.8.67 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]