User talk:Ahalboeg

Gblaha, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gblaha! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Edward Kemboi has been reverted.
Your edit here to Edward Kemboi was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/ATLtcElite/status/898954352353832962) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello, I'm Willsome429. I noticed that you recently removed content from Pace Academy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The content you removed was sourced. If you would like to start a discussion on the matter, please visit the talk page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tinman Elite (June 10)

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

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 18:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meg[atron] Griffin

This has been discussed extensively at Talk:Meg Griffin, and consensus is to refer to her only as "Meg" in the intro. You will need to start a new discussion and get a new consensus in order to put the change through. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As another administrator has already pointed you to the previous discussion on the matter above, your revert is purely disruptive. If you continue to edit war against consensus, you will be blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will end my edit war, but I will continue to fight for change in the name of accuracy. Consensus doesn't mean accuracy. I have the facts to back it up. Season 12, ep 4 "A Fistful of Meg" proves this. -Ahalboeg

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries make it clear you to intend to continue to edit war and your post at Talk:Meg Griffin demonstrates you can't be bothered to even try to learn how consensus works on this project. If you start up again when the block expires, I expect the next block will be significantly longer, if not indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 15 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here I am fighting for accuracy over fake news. This battle has gone on for too long. I would like to request arbitration. Consensus doesn't mean accuracy. I have the facts to back it up. Season 12, ep 4 "A Fistful of Meg" proves this. People don't like this fact but it is a fact. I would ideally like to bring in Macfarlane to verify this

Decline reason:

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. To prove your edit you will need a reliable source. It is laughable to think you would get Seth McFarlane to comment on this dispute. Please also read the voluminous past discussions on the subject's talk page, which established that despite the canon breaking "megatron" episode, she should be referred to as Megan given that is her otherwise common name. Regardless, you have been blocked for edit warring, which you have not dealt with. Edit warring is not allowed, even if you're right. If you wanna get unblocked, please tell us how you will be more constructive in the future. Also, I hope you take a moment and realize that you have been blocked over a fictional character from a comedy TV show. Its not life or death, relax a bit. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:15, 16 June 2020 (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.

Nomination of Andrew Begley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Begley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Begley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Natg 19 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]