User talk:Allen2/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Userpage correction

So you know, the link on your userpage for "leaving a message on my talk page" was still set to your old account. I've updated this for you to reflect your new username. Crazy sam10 (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This was also the case with your friends section. I've also fixed this for you. Crazy sam10 (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sam, hi and thank you for your edits to my user namespace. Also, I'm surprised to see you on Wikipedia. Thanks, --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 22:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Hi: your request for bureaucratship has been removed from the page. You don't have much chance of becoming a bureaucrat without being an admin first, I'm sorry to say. (Also I'm not sure I understand the reason you gave in your request; bureaucrats cannot delete block log entries.) However, I see in your talk page notice above that you say you are not an admin or bureaucrat and "don't wish to be one"; why then the request for bureaucratship and the postings on talk pages about bureaucrat adoption? Did you change your mind?

Also, off the topic: I find that talk page notice very hard to read; the background colour and the text colour are very similar blues on my monitor and the letters are also very small. Could you possibly give us more contrast and a larger font, for those of us with bad eyes? Thanks! Yngvadottir (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • See WP:ACCESSIBILITY for more info on the colors and such that Yngvadottir mentioned. Our goal here is to make Wikipedia readable to anyone, including those with vision problems. And yes, there has never been a Bureaucrat that wasn't an admin first, and most admin have at least two years and 6,000 edits behind them. That isn't a hard rule, that is just how history has usually played out. The standard for Crat is much, much higher. Since they close all Request For Admin, yet you filing was completely broken. Even if you had the experience, that alone would have gotten you opposition. Dennis - 2¢ 14:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir and Dennis Brown: I have to seek this out on Wikipedia for more actively. I wish to be adopted of having rollback rights first on Wikipedia. And I wish to adopt an admin at anytime on Wikipedia (including oversighter and checkuser rights), then I'm adopted a bureaucrat in 2016 after being an admin. Also, if other admins blocked wrong users with a mistake I oversighted to them, then I request admins to delete their block entries for them or I do it if I granted one. Thanks, --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 16:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The best thing to do is work on articles, demonstrating you know how to do that (article building is the only reason we are here, after all). I normally don't give out rollback or other rights until I see around 3000 edits. As far as being adopted for admin, most don't get adopted, but that isn't something that likely happens until you have 6000 edits and a good ratio (ie: at least 40% of your edits to articles). So take it one step at a time, starting with articles. Oh, and fixing your page so it passes the accessibility rules around here, and admin/future admin is expected to know that policy. Dennis - 2¢ 16:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Allen2, I'm afraid you have an additional problem: it's hard to understand your English. When you say you wish to be adopted of rollback rights and you wish to adopt an administrator, do you mean you want to be made a rollbacker and then an admin? If so, then all I can suggest is: become known as a good, friendly editor; revert vandalism, welcome new users, help at the help desks. But for all these things, and for a RfA, you will need to be able to write in clear English, because writing is what we do here, and because it's important to be able to explain things, both to new users and to people who disagree about things. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I know English already, and clearly as native or professional. So I'm a good editor here on the encyclopedia, at least more than 1000 edits on articles maybe granted these rights. As far being adopted for rollback, I help them rollback to last users' version (used by twinkle already). For admin rights granted, I might be able to delete articles and log entries above, and then bureaucrat rights granted it will be helpful to me. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 16:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you have 90 edits to articles. [1] Over 2/3rds of your edits (71% or 904) have been in your user space and editor talk page edits. And while your English is decent, it is not even close to native or professional level yet. Dennis - 2¢ 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: This issue has been discussed countless times before. For eg. [2] The latest being [3]. WP:CIR.  NQ  talk 17:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NQ, no need to talk about that was previously archived. Dennis Brown, my English is close up to it of being native and professional. I better be seek to get more edits on articles namespaces until I reach over my edits on my user page namespaces at least to grant these rights. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your English is really not up to scratch. Please, several people have told you that you have problems with written English, if you refuse to accept this than I can guarantee your ambitions will come to nothing. It's better than any language I know, but still not good enough to pass for native/professional. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I think NQ has explained the problem above pretty well. Dennis - 2¢ 18:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
My English is very close to native and professional, so I'm still a wiki expert to be seeking out on Wikipedia whether I become an admin first then bureaucrat, after my article namespace edits passed more than my user namespace edits. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It is never fun to be told that one's knowledge or ability is not quite as good as one thought. However, you do need to accept that your English language skille are not yet close to being native-like, much less professional. When we learn a new language, we have to accept that our skills are not at the level we would like them to be - if we don't accept that, it means that it will be almost impossible for us to reach that level. (You may trust me on this; I have been teaching English to non-native speakers at university level for more than ten years.) It is an undeniable fact that native (and non-native) speakers of English find it hard to understand what you mean when you write, and that means that you need to work on your language proficiency. There is nothing shameful about that. But if you keep saying that your English is professional, you are just making it more difficult for yourself to communicate. --bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bonadea: My English is been native and professional already, so that's no need to talk about that here. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 15:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion

Considering how many messages you delete without archiving (including valid messages from admins), I disagree with the page being deleted since the history is the only record of these messages. However, my opinion is irrelevant and an admin will make the decision. Kirin13 (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kirin, but I want my talk page deleted because I want my talk page history log deleted and users' contributions who edited my talk page deleted too. So, I'm deleting this, then after I re-create this page without restoring my oldest messages and I'll be okay with it. I like Wikipedia better of positive activities. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 11:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete talk page log history entries

@GB fan: or other admins:, Can you delete these old talk page entries above: from 630865187 to 599640649 (my first edit on my talk page on WP). All of my talk page log entries except the latest from above, delete them then I'm okay with it. WP:REVDEL is necessary to discontinue other social-networking dramas. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Unless you can explain how all those revisions meet any of the criteria at WP:CRD. GB fan 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, my page revisions can be met at WP:CRD. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 00:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Which criterion applies to all those revisions? GB fan 00:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That applies to oversighters on Wikipedia, which it can delete or suppress log entries from pages. So I linked those revisions above, I need them deleted. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 01:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you can't or won't tell me which criterion applies to the revisions, I won't delete anything. GB fan 01:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Allen, the default at Wikipedia has always been to never, ever delete talk pages unless there is a clearly articulated need. I've only seen it happen a couple of times. Your best bet is to contact an Oversighter and ask if they can. This allows you to do so in private. Again, it is very rare to see talk page edits revdel'ed or oversighted, but I don't want to cover all the criteria publicly, they can explain if you politely make a request via email. Dennis - 2¢ 01:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I did make a request via email. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 01:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I need these revisions deleted from here, since I renamed my account. Other older revisions are confusing me. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 00:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Then...don't look at the old revisions? Problem solved. —LucasThoms 10:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Lucas Thoms: Thank you. I don't look at the history log, but until I have granted admin and oversight rights on the English Wikipedia if I want them deleted now (and run checkuser and bureaucrat rights also). But first, I have rollback rights on this site first. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
If you ever get specific rights and then use them in ways that are prohibited by policy (as User:Dennis Brown notes, your deletion request would almost certainly not be allowed), you will lose those rights. Your repeated refusal to understand what is allowed here on wikipedia makes it increasingly unlikely you ever will get those rights, but you may as well know how they would apply anyway. DMacks (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Allen, I started as User:Pharmboy in 2006. I changed to my real name in 2008. All my talk page and other edits since day one are still in the archive. Even though I have admin rights, I can't delete them. Any request to get them deleted would be declined. There are very, very reasons why I would delete/RevDel any talk page edits on a users page, all of which revolve around privacy issues. Convenience isn't a reason, nor is "confusion". Having rollbacker/admin/crat/OS or other bits is meaningless. Having those bits grant you no extra favors, we are all held to the exact same standards and policies. Becoming an admin isn't an increase in "rank", it is just an increase in responsibility. If anything, we are held to a higher standard of conduct, not a lower one. Admin serve, they don't run things. We are janitors, not generals. Dennis - 2¢ 19:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Magic

@DMacks and Dennis Brown: Your response, because I don't get involved around Wikipedia. So both of you relax and stay nice. My responsibility of becoming an admin and bureaucrat was in expert relation of having magic. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 21:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Magic, you say? - NQ (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I would wipe that expectation clean from your mind. There is no magic. Lots of aggravation, but no magic. Dennis - 2¢ 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There is magic, I find it myself from a magic wand, unicorn or an alicorn can help with that. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Allen, it will probably be a very long time before you are able to be considered for adminship, so why not consider adding content to articles insteacd of worrying about adminship and archiving pages? Some pages you might be interested in reading are here and here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I can be adopted of granting admin and bureaucrat rights at the English Wikipedia, if I edit on this site at least for two years. Adding content to articles that needs a cited and reliable source of it. I have magic on Wikipedia. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 01:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Appeal 12/27/2019

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

Allen2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Now I understand that why I'm blocked on Wikipedia in the first place, because I failed to demonstrate my competency to clearly communicate with my peers in English and a lack of ability to edit constructively in an encyclopedia setting. So, I rely on Just Chilling to demonstrate my competency in English before my next request. I made a number of substantial contributions on Simple English Wikipedia that can appear constructive with every single edit with edit reasons, and I was able to improve my proficiency in English; this means I know when I'm going to make an edit, at anytime, especially that I will be able to correct a single grammar mistake when I just visited a page. I must apologize for my poor English and my past behavior in the past five years, so I will promise that will never happen again for my misbehavior. I hope you will forgive me for all of this. I will rely on you administrators when you allow me a second chance on this site. I believe that this block will no longer be necessary anymore, because I want to make constructive edits this time as demonstrated with my latest contributions on Simple English Wikipedia. That is when I started to edit again, I will be honest that I want to make things right again with my focus entirely on the encyclopedia setting. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 09:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Your unblock request was accepted by the community. Please remember to follow through on your editing plan. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's my editing plan I would follow if I were unblocked:

Administrator, I will be glad to hear a response from you as soon as possible.
--Allen (talk / ctrb) 09:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Allen2, I think it is clear that your English proficiency has improved a lot, but it is still not quite at the point where you should be making grammar changes in articles. Looking at a few of your Simple English Wikipedia edits, some are fine but several are not: for instance, this edit has a grammar error ("They began to play since the team was established..."), this edit adds the word "decade" which is not idiomatic (and another user had removed it when you added it previously), and in this edit there is a factual error based on a misunderstanding of the language. (This confuses me – I thought there were more than one professional baseball team in New York? However, American sports are pretty much a closed book to me, and perhaps the Mets are not in fact professionals.) Thus, I think it would be a good idea if you stayed away from language/grammar changes for now. --bonadea contributions talk 10:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Bonadea. I reacted to what you were saying about some of my edits there. The grammar error in Houston Astros is fixed to a shorter sentence, which I will say it is: "They began to play in 1962." would be correct. In 2019 and 2020 pages, I am confused why there's no need a "decade" word in there after the 2010s and 2020s as they removed that word in there after these, which you were saying that it's not idiomatic? I will have to reiterate that word should be included in those year articles as it was seen on this wiki. In X page, I said to your edit reason "Oh, I didn't know that." as you were saying that for instance, words that end with an "x" are just "ks" in word pronunciation (fox, relax, etc.). I would have to italicize those known words and pronunciation in that page again. (As you thought that there's more than one professional baseball team in New York (not just the Yankees), then there is the Mets as well as I included that in the article but different from American League.) And lastly, staying away from language/grammar changes for now would probably be a good idea, because grammar is not only the focus on the wiki. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The last discussion happened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Unblock request for Allen2. Since that was declined by the community, any further requests would have to go through the community, too. Is this the unblock request you want posted to WP:AN? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm sorry that I took so long to respond, because my internet connection was down during the weekend. So, by the fact that I would like to negotiate with the community again, yes, I will let you go ahead and post my unblock request at AN at this time; but I will have to admit that I will be honest with them to agree with my current editing plan that I will follow if I were unblocked. I reflected on what they were saying about my issues involved here on English Wikipedia in the past five years. I will tell them that I will be up to the point to contribute constructively on the encyclopedia setting, with much of improvement in my proficiency in English. I will not be reckless that I lack my focus from the encyclopedia setting, ever again. This means, I learn my lesson now that I was reckless about those competency issues that I have involved by several users, I will be here to build an encyclopedia.
(I will also address my issue that I tried to get administrator rights, but I choose not to become one as I said that I'm a naive for that right. I will note that I'm not a Teahouse host, because I talked about that with Jethro before that I'm not ready for that; therefore, I will choose not to be a host. Lastly, I won't request page protection of administrator user pages if they're not being vandalized for a long time, but they'll protect their user pages themselves if they're being vandalized. I will not run into these issues again in the future with these kind of requests.) --Allen (talk / ctrb) 02:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, it's posted to WP:AN#Standard offer unblock request from Allen2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Barkeep49; because that would be enough support from a former administrator and some users for me to be unblocked successfully, as I took a long break to improve my manners and improve my English proficiency before this. This means I'm back in business now with my focus on the encyclopedia setting by my editing plan. Also, I will re-address the issue that I will not get administrator rights in the future, because I said that I'm a naive for that right to the community. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 07:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Allen2, good luck. Please be careful. Your response is understandable and clear but also is clearly from a non-native speaker. Edits like that in articles might cause problems. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing grammar

Hi Allen2, and welcome back to Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that you focus on making content edits and not any grammar edits for now. You said above: And lastly, staying away from language/grammar changes for now would probably be a good idea, because grammar is not only the focus on the wiki. I agree! But not only because grammar is not the only focus (in fact, in most cases correct grammar is much less important than correct content, as long as the content can be understood correctly). Unfortunately, even though your English has improved a lot, you still make grammar errors; here you changed a grammatically correct sentence to one that was ungrammatical. "registered her CutiePieMarzia YouTube channel" is fine; "registered her YouTube channel as CutiePieMarzia" is slightly incorrect – "register" can't really be used with the perposition "as" in that kind of sentence. (You can "register yourself as a student", or "register a person as a voter", for instance, but it is not idiomatic to use the construction with a name.) You also make grammar corrections which are perfectly fine, like here, but because there are so many other things to do at Wikipedia, and because your grasp of grammar is not yet perfect, maybe it would be better if you stuck to your resolve to stay away from language/grammar changes for now.

I'm sorry I never got back to you in our conversation above – it was in the middle of the Christmas holidays, which as always were insanely busy. Let me respond now to a couple of points.

  • You said: In 2019 and 2020 pages, I am confused why there's no need a "decade" word in there after the 2010s and 2020s as they removed that word in there after these, which you were saying that it's not idiomatic? I will have to reiterate that word should be included in those year articles as it was seen on this wiki. No, the word should not be included there, as it is not idiomatic English to say "It is the last year of the 2010s decade." The idiomatic phrase is "It is the last year of the 2010s".
  • As for the New York Yankees edit, here, I was obviously not clear about the issue there. When you say "The New York Yankees are the professional baseball team ...", the "the" means that it is the only professional baseball team. If there are others, you must say "The New York Yankees are a professional baseball team ...". It is OK to use "a" even if there are other pro teams, but it is not OK to use "the" if there is another one. This is a change in meaning, so more important than most grammar issues.

I hope this makes sense. All the best, --bonadea contributions talk 10:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Hello again. Sorry for the late response as I had to do other work in mind. As per comment in AN discussion, I should hesitate to make grammar edits, but I'm genuine to correct a single grammar mistake if I see one but only in article pages. Since you undo-ed that edit for me, I have to admit to you that edit should also make sense in that sentence as I noticed that was a slight of a grammar error. With your comment above on my edit to New York Yankees on Simple English Wikipedia, I provided an edit reason that I changed only one word from "the" to "a", as in fact that there's more than one professional baseball team from New York City. You know what? If you're trying to help me here on Wikipedia, that's good, because I had a user that was a rollbacker who was trying to help me by having a look over at my contributions every time I made an edit that may come with his attention. To be honest, I will hope sure that you (and other users including those who are trying to help) don't make me feel bad. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 07:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Blue and WP:ENGVAR/MOS:RETAIN

Hi, it may be worth you reading WP:ENGVAR before you change another article from one variety of English to another. The important phrase is "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.". Also, FYI, verbs ending in -ise (i.e. "utilise") are not misspellings in British/Commonwealth English. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Black Kite: if you look at my edit reason, then you know why I changed all those single words in that article of my favorite color from "colour" to "color" as well as correcting some like misspelled words from a variety of Commonwealth English (i.e. utilise --> utilize, revolutionise --> revolutionize, labour --> labor, favourite --> favorite). Because, in good faith, I want to change all of those words in one variety from British/Commonwealth to standard American in that article and others, and I thought we don't always use British/Commonwealth words in 100% of all articles on English Wikipedia all the time. In other words, a variety of American English words should always be a standard for all the articles. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Well it's good to hear from you again. Well, actually no, because I want to say it's "color" on that article; but basically, the variety of those words are kept in one choice by other user's choice in British/Commonwealth in that article when I changed all those words in one variety to standard (and corrected) word spellings, which what majority of people use today. Thank you, --Allen (talk / ctrb) 21:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter what any individual editor wants – you prefer the American spelling, another editor might prefer another variety, but that's not relevant. Some articles use one spelling, and some another. (Did you read WP:ENGVAR? It is all explained there.) What you did in Blue was unacceptable because that article should not have the spelling changed from British to US American spelling. There are notes in the article itself specifying this, and also on the article talk page. In addition, your edit changed the spelling of book titles, and of quoted text. Hopefully you understand that those changes introduced actual errors to the article. Please do not make any other spelling changes from British or other Commonwealth varieties to US American spellings. In some specific instances it may be OK to do so, but it does not appear that you understand when it is appropriate and when it isn't (that is also apparent from this edit summary). Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Good to hear from you again. Since you got my attention, I will come with WP:ENGVAR if I were to change those word spellings on articles, which means they prefer that variety (but not all the time). I still admit that those words in British/Commonwealth spellings still have the same pronunciation as what American English were regularly used. Stay safe and take care, --Allen (talk / ctrb) 23:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I said? You replied " In other words, a variety of American English words should always be a standard for all the articles.". This is simply incorrect. Try reading the link I posted again. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Oh, yes I did, because no matter what variety of English they use on article pages, I will be careful what I'm going to change with those British/Commonwealth spellings; which means at this point, I will admit to keep those spellings what they used on any article page. Stay safe and take care, --Allen (talk / ctrb) 01:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Highlighting non-music videos

Why that videos "should be highlighted", they are more important then the others? I think not. Also we don't have a real definition of "non-music video", for example "Baby Shark" is a music video or an educational video for children (so a non-music video)? And also only on the page "most disliked videos" we have videos highlighted, on "most viewed", "most liked" and "most viewed videos in first 24 hours" there aren't videos highlighted, so it isn't a relevant information, and we don't have sources for the definition of "non-music video"--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Luke Stark 96: That was since you removed those highlights from those articles before, I think I see that it isn't important to highlight those non-music videos on those top lists with a yellow background color but for the most-disliked YouTube videos article, which I updated the non-music video highlights when they're moved up or down as they forgot to do that. I thought you should be able to admit it to highlight those non-music videos on those top lists that are one of the most-viewed and most-liked if you could say it's important and/or relevant for those pages. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 19:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Tropical cyclones!

Hi, and welcome to the Tropical cyclone WikiProject! We are a group of Wikipedia editors who help to improve articles related to tropical cyclones on Wikipedia.

Looking for somewhere to start? Here are a few suggestions.

If you have any comments, suggestions, or would like to talk about the project in general, feel free to leave a message on the talk page.

~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 13:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Thank you for your welcome message. Since I'm interested in tropical cyclones, which I'm always on track with hurricanes in the Atlantic area as well as the Eastern Pacific area, it will be an honor for me to be part of the tropical cyclone project when it comes to an updated sustained wind speed and minimum central pressure of a tropical cyclone system. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 19:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Unseemly summary

WP:IMPARTIAL directs: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. So far as I can tell, this rule does not extend to edit summaries. However, your cheerleading in the revision history of Sadak 2—"Trailer at 9.5 million dislikes. So close!"—is uncalled for. Vote brigading is a form of electoral fraud and should not be encouraged. NedFausa (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Well, I wouldn't have to say that in my edit summary at anytime, which I made an additional comment in that edit summary. What do you mean when I said "So close!" in the edit summary that you reacted that it is "uncalled for" that comes to an impartial tone? And what do you mean that I'm cheerleading for that edit summary? For that kind of edit reason, I didn't cheerlead nor quote from someone for that when I'm just updating the number of dislikes of a single individual video from that video trailer, which I'm updating the numbers from what I saw. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 03:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Activity at WikiProject My Little Pony

Hello, Allen2/Archive 4. At WikiProject My Little Pony, I'm trying to compile a list of active participants. Your name is currently listed on the active members list and you are active on Wikipedia. Would you consider yourself active on WikiProject My Little Pony? Please {{ping}} me in your reply and see our project talk page for the latest updates. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Yes, I will consider myself active on that WikiProject, which I often edit them. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 10:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Links to draft articles

Information icon Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to MrBeast. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Arjayay: For some reason, I made an edit that included a draft link in the article that a person competed in the video. That was my first edit that included the internal wiki link leading to a draft article in an actual article, which I didn't notice until you left me a message about it. Per MOS:DRAFTNOLINK, I acknowledge that draft links should not be included in articles, so does links to pages outside of article namespace, which draft pages are not ready for until the draft is ready to be made as an article by some kind of a consensus review. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 03:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Chumlee

Hi. Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to Chumlee, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. I know you don't edit here that often, but since you've accumulated over 2,000 edits since 2014, you may have been informed that Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation. Editors cannot add material to an article and ask others to find citations for it for them, based on the editor's belief that the material in question is "likely" true. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: This means it was a confusion that Chumlee was not the same person with a same name who made that donation, which I didn't know that and another user informed me privately about that. I'm confused by it. You're right that I don't edit on Wikipedia often, but I often pop up for some content edits from what I just saw. Since you note me that "Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources", I'll come up with a reliable source or two if I'm going to add something to the article, usually speaking with the {{citation needed}} template when I just added a new sentence in an article paragraph that was just in from the event I'm interested at that it's likely true and/or official. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 20:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
In addition to what Nightscream says, please do not add real-time information about things like donations that change frequently. It is not what Wikipedia is for. --bonadea contributions talk 20:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
What something that change frequently, another user have added that sentence with a current number of donations in an article for some reason, which is why I update the current number seeing that sentence when their milestones have been reached. With you noted me from your edit reason in MrBeast that "frequently-changing information should be avoided", I think there should be a main reason on Wikipedia why frequently-changing information (like total donated, number of followers, number of likes, number of dislikes, etc.) is not being needed or necessary on articles even after they reached their milestones (25 million, 26 million, or whatsoever), so I'll be careful with that. That's quite perhaps for that kind of information in articles, usually in sentences. One thing, Bona, were you trying to help me, because you occasionally pop up for me with something that come up to my mistake? --Allen (talk / ctrb) 21:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOTNEWS explains why. --bonadea contributions talk 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
So that's why Wikipedia is not a newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS, especially for something that's frequently-changing information in terms of how many of something like donations in sentence is not being necessary to include on articles. That was part of a new idea. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 23:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2022 World Series, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Because the Astros just made it to the World Series again this year, I tend to be the first user to add something into that article quickly before other user could add it. I sometimes add some things that I just learned without citing a reliable source as a result, which what I did in playoff articles while the playoff game is in progress as updated in MLB.com website. I didn't know that the Astros and Phillies are going to meet in the postseason for the second time this year in the World Series, which you pointed out in your edit reason and reverted my edit in that article that they both met before in the 1980 National League Championship Series. I was noting that in that article that would be the first postseason meeting between the Astros and the Phillies, and they recently met for this year's baseball regular season was going to be a rematch of the 2022 regular season finale that they both met in the last three games of the 2022 MLB regular season. I'll cite a source on some articles in the future when something just happened, which I tend to be the first user to add that kind of information into any article I have been focusing on. If I don't have a source where I just learned it from or something that just happened, I'll simply put a {{citation needed}} template there at the end of sentence that I just added on the article. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 05:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
You wrote that this is the first time that the Astros and Phillies are meeting in the postseason, and that's inaccurate. I don't know where you heard it, but this is why you should not add things without a reliable source. There is no rush. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I came here to say something similar to User:Muboshgu. Allen2, you said: "If I don't have a source where I just learned it from or something that just happened, I'll simply put a [citation needed] template there at the end of sentence that I just added on the article." Please don't add information about things that "just happened" unless you have a reliable source. Citation needed templates really shouldn't be added together with new, unsourced information; when you are the one adding the info, you need to also provide the source. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Mubo, Bona, I agree what you both said when I add anything into the article, I will need a source for it where I get the information from something that just happened or happened before. Baseball postseason articles are meant for me to add something if a baseball team qualified for the playoffs advanced to the next round and the notability of team scorings for the game in the postseason series before other user does. Maybe you should not make me feel bad as if you were trying to help me on Wikipedia on what I'm doing here. Thanks, --Allen (talk / ctrb) 08:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 World Series

On 6 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 World Series, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather: Map Dot & Template/Infobox Colors

Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.

We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. NoahTalk 03:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Noah, I appreciate you reach out to me for the infobox colors regarding tropical cyclone categories. Earlier this year, category 5 storms were marked purple and category 4 storms were marked red, which I thought of it when some user changed it back to red for cat 5 storms and orange for cat 4 storms. Colors like that for those categories from the original use here on Wikipedia might come up something questionable in terms of color between categories 1 and 3 (light yellow to light orange). --Allen (talk / ctrb) 20:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that the project couldn’t reach a decision with just a single proposed replacement so we reverted the colors back to the original for now. It’s hoped that we will be able to come up with a suitable replacement and have a decision made in 2023. We are asking for proposals currently to give everyone a chance to tackle the issues we need to fix. The hope is that the best one will eventually be implemented. NoahTalk 20:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

June 2023

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hurricane Arlene. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. CycloneYoris talk! 18:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris: Basically, I copied all its disambiguation content from Hurricane Arlene to Tropical Storm Arlene, because the storm name Arlene had been tropical storm more commonly than they were hurricanes, which is the reason not all storm names named Arlene were hurricanes. For example of storms with the same name in the past: Tropical Storm Dolly, Tropical Storm Florence, Tropical Storm Harvey/List of storms named Harvey. The page "Tropical Storm Arlene" was a redirect page to "Hurricane Arlene" at first. When I tried to move the page from "Hurricane Arlene" to "Tropical Storm Arlene", the move process doesn't work because the page already exist as a redirect, and I had to copy and paste content to that page while making "Hurricane Arlene" page as a redirect. That didn't move the page history when I did that, and I don't know how to move the page to its existent page while moving the page history. So, I will ask you this: Is there a reason why did you revert it back? That disambiguation content is supposed to be in "Tropical Storm Arlene" (or "List of storms named Arlene") while keeping the page history during the page move process. I'll consider a consensus for that page move. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 18:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I reverted it back because cut-and-paste moves should never be done, since the page history is needed for attribution purposes, and you should've used the move function instead. I'll go ahead and move the title to List of storms named Arlene, as I already had thought about doing that, but I needed to revert it back to the original title at Hurricane Arlene in order to preserve its history. CycloneYoris talk! 19:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
So the page history is needed for attribution purposes when moving pages instead of doing a cut-and-paste move. Also, for instance: MarioProtIV moved disambiguation content for tropical storms that were named Harvey from "Tropical Storm Harvey" to "List of storms named Harvey" to standardize the title for other storms of the same name, the title of the page for other past storms named Arlene "List of storms named Arlene" may work. We're going to need a consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones to discuss this possible page move that may work for other disambiguation pages of past storms of the same name, or keep it "Tropical Storm (name)" if it is a standard and more common for us. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 21:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that a discussion there would be necessary, as each of those pages needs to be evaluated individually in my opinion, and should only be moved if the title is inaccurate (as was the case with Hurricane Arlene). The best thing to do would be to handle each page individually, and only move the title if needed. For instance, if the page is titled "Hurricane X" and most storms are only of TS strength, then a move to a title of "List of storms X" would definitely be required. CycloneYoris talk! 23:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allen2/Archive_4&oldid=1193020184"