User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lepricavark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot request to be blocked and then continue to edit with another named account. In addition, you have made hundreds of edits with IPs since being blocked last month. I've re-enabled TPA and given you back the ability to e-mail, so, if you wish, you can make an unblock request or otherwise discuss this block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Interesting. So you can alternate between multiple accounts (is declaration required?) provided you don't do so for bad faith purposes, but you'll get indeffed if you request and receive a 6-month block from The Divine Ms Bish and subsequently succumb to the temptation for good faith purposes? Do I have that right? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Lepricavark has not evaded a block imposed as some sort of remedy but on self request. That they were unable to keep themselves from editing even with a block is not socking for the purposes for which we sock block. I think it is just as well to unblock them and allow a constructive (if to obsessive compulsive to stop) editor return to constructively editing in the open and above board. Having said that, the non traditional, God-I-can't-stop alternative accounts should stay blocked. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

So I made a mess out of this situation and I apologize for that, especially to Bishonen who has every right to be upset with me. I'd like to continue my project of adding listas parameters for biographical articles that don't have them. Most editors would probably find it a horribly boring task, but for whatever reason I enjoy it. I understand why I was blocked and I promise to refrain from editing while logged-out and from making/using any other accounts. Lepricavark (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you mostly per Bishonen's comments and partly per your request.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I still can't edit any page besides my talk page, apparently because of the block on the other account. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I hate autoblock. See if you can edit now.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I can edit now. Thank you! Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

UNblock discussion

The original self requested block would have been to December. Is that no longer relevant? This is why Bishonen hates self-requested blocks. I'd be inclined to unblock as I understand how compulsive the compulsion is. (editing at work like I said I would not. Meh.) But I think unblocking and putting this behind us would be for the best. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors who have been self-requested-blocked by Bishonen can only be unblocked after consulting her, per her very clear instructions on User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. Lepricavark had read those instructions and agreed to them [1], and had also been warned by Bishonen that six months was "quite a drastic measure" [2]. In my mind he should therefore only be unblocked with the agreement of both Bishonen and Bbb23. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Several of the admins who have codified their conditions for self-requested blocks specify that if the user evades the block, they will be indeffed. I don't do that in my conditions, because I think it's overly draconian, and because it's in tension with the usual condition "I will not place indefinite or permanent ("infinite") blocks." Hmm. So I won't place indefinite blocks, but in two steps I will; ask for a six-month block, evade it, and there's your indef? As Mandruss says, do I have that right?

People who ask for a block have already thereby confessed that they have trouble with the addiction, so, as the blocking admin, I'm aware of it, I've sort of acknowledged it, by placing the block. And I don't think the addiction is shameful (I've certainly got it). So, as stern as my conditions sound, I'm actually against an indef here. The six-month block is already full of holes, so there's little point in keeping it in place. I agree with Dlohcierekim that unblocking and putting this behind us would be for the best.

I'm considering adding the humanitarian Dlohcierekim's milder condition to my own: If you evade your block or edit while logged out, I will not again block you on request. Though maybe not, as it's kind of obvious, and the user would surely in any case be unlikely to ask that particular admin again; there are others in the category. Perhaps I'll take a leaf from User:Bishzilla/Self-requested pocketings instead: "Rope ladders in pies acceptable, but no armed rescue operations PLEASE." Bishonen | talk 09:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC).

Welcome in pocket, little Lepricavark! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 09:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC).

Thank you to Bbb23 for unblocking me and to Dlohcierekim, Mandruss, and Bishonen for their gracious, compassionate input. Again, I apologize for making a mess of this situation. In retrospect, I should never have requested the block in the first place and I especially regret that my actions might be perceived as disrespectful to Bish. I'd also like to ask Softlavender to reconsider whether their comment here was helpful and, indeed, whether this was any of their business. Lepricavark (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Bishzilla have big pocket. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your kind words. Regardless of what you think about me or what I've said, I agree completely with your conclusions and could use some help dealing with these matters. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal

hi i just want to let u that i have 10 yrs of exp. in wikipedia and i have over 1000 edits to my credit, as such i am qualified to make these edits ```` awaiting a response to know why did u revert my edit ````

Please sign your posts correctly in the future. If you can't even do that, then don't try to impress me with your editing credentials. As for the edits in question, I've long been involved in preventing biased editors from adding content to that page. It could be that you have no connection to those prior editors, but I have my doubts about that. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

hi Lepricavark (talk) thanks for the response. but you need to understand some facts about wikipedia & its rules, Sometimes i have encountered wiki editors who do tend to get protective about the articles they've extensively edited - but "no one ... has the right to act as though they are the owners of a particular wiki page. - see WP:Own, which has some very useful advice. as for this wiki article please understand there is no bias, there are some info that can & should be uploaded. i hope i have presented my case and hope that i wont be facing unnecessary reverts from your side regarding updates. Joydeep ghosh

hi Lepricavark (talk) clarify my doubt https://www.slideshare.net/aksamyal/gurbaksh-chahal-128273518 this link has got info about the parents can this be added Joydeep ghosh

To clear up what I said before, I'd like for further discussion to be held on the article talk page, not on my personal talk page. Lepricavark (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

hi Lepricavark (talk) i am adding this link if you think this fits then ok. Joydeep ghosh

I believe I understand all the pertinent facts about Wikipedia. If you persist in this matter, perhaps I'll escalate further and we'll find out whether or not you're being paid by somebody with connections to Chahal. You'll have to excuse me for not assuming good faith, but I ran out of good faith with regard to this article a long time ago... for good reason. Lepricavark (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

hi Lepricavark (talk) i understand your pov but kindly be assured it has got nothing as such i am only trying to make certain updations, that can & should be uploaded. now can i have your permission to do these updates. Joydeep ghosh

I can't prevent you from re-adding the content, but if you do I will open a discussion on the talk page to determine whether the content is appropriate. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

hi Lepricavark (talk) i have no issues with that, we can certainly discuss the updates here the talk page is already open, now can i go ahead and re add the edits i did. Joydeep ghosh

Shortdescrips for indigenous people

Please do not mark them the way you did in this article, as we are working to prevent people being further misclassified in the Wikimedia projects. The first sentence of the article even states she is Sámi: "Ann-Mari Katharine Thomassen (born 1964) is a Sámi politician and a schoolteacher." The correct wording for the short description can be found in my correction. Thank you and giitu. -Yupik (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Lepricavark, thanks for taking the time to consider my candidacy at RfA. Know that the feedback I've received around notability is something I continue to consider. I desire to use feedback like yours to continue my perpetual efforts to improve as an editor. Please know that my door is always open. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How am I misrepresenting?

I don't have any problem with you and the community thinking this isn't relevant to the discussion on AN/I, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting anything about Sir Joseph's comment. And, to be sure, I quoted the entire thing and linked to the places where the discussions between us prior to that comment occurred. If you still think I have misrepresented and think it's important, please explain to me why you think so. The part I bolded is unambiguous and is followed by assertions of political bias on the part of the sources they're referencing, which you can see in my comment that they were responding to are content experts.

I've brought my question here because I don't see how having it there would be productive. I also understand if you decide to ignore me.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You gave the impression that Sir Joseph just doesn't care about reliable sources in general, when I believe that his specific point was that the sources in question had a POV problem. He may or may not be right about the sources -- although political sources seem to be growing increasingly unreliable in an age in which narratives reigns supreme -- but he's not fundamentally opposed to using reliable sources. At least, I don't think he is. Lepricavark (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

in brief

Just noticed you took issue with some of my comments. Frankly I stand by what I said. I chose my words carefully. I don't see a need to discuss this further, but I did want to acknowledge seeing what you said. --Cube lurker (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. While I disagree, it's obvious that you are acting in good faith and I agree that no further discussion is necessary. Lepricavark (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello

If you look at my oppose on the rfa, it was conciliatory. The candidate does excellent content work, but there is some remenants form past battles that sit uneasy. Anyway, we are all entitled to take a view; I think you attacked on semantics rather than substance, but thats your call. My only query is actionable, how. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It may have been a stretch to call it actionable, but I can't see how GRuban could be accused of doxxing or copy/pasting as he clearly did neither. Lepricavark (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It may have been a stretch to call it copy/paste. My reading of the tides is that he'll pass next time. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You think "next time", with some saying never ever, and others (not you!) simply following without checking out details, and those who want to check out details (such as Floq) too late? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Iridescent's support carries a lot of weight, and will sway some to accept that we all live and learn etc. Personally, I have more respect for the candidate now, post the RFA; it was rough, but he acted admirably and with character. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, with Iridescent possibly swaying some - that's why I thought withdrawal at that time wasn't the wisest - and with "admirably and with character", only: I saw that a bit sooner, - see his talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lepricavark, sorry to hog your talk. Gerda, you are unusually kind-hearted and by nature sympathetic; I havnt looked at GRuban's talk, in part because I feel for the toll the last few days must have taken, and carry some regret. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Look at GRuban's talk, - it's the most uplifting thing I've seen in a while, and I change my mind: the next round will be successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing unsupported infobox parameters

Lepricavark, how's it going? I've noticed your many edits of late to remove the deprecated sport field from Infobox college coach. You can probably get someone to run a bot for you to automate all that and save you a lot of tedious editing. User:Primefac may be able to do it for you. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing well and I hope the same is true for you. Thank you kindly for the suggestion, but I'm actually one of those rare kooks who enjoys tedious, repetitive work. As long it's not a problem for those edits to be done manually, I'd kinda like to keep doing them. Lepricavark (talk)

It's not a problem, but I could point you toward tedious, repetitive work that's less easily "botable". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bump Elliott

On 12 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bump Elliott, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 05:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Be prepared.

My 14-years experience tells me, be prepared for coming SG socks. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure he's been doing it for years and will be somewhat surprised if other accounts aren't blocked along with that one. Some troublemakers are very clever; this one isn't. Lepricavark (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

More tedious tasks!

Lepricavark, thanks for your efforts to clean out the deprecated fields from Infobox college coach. If you're down for more college football-related tedious tasks like that, let me know. I have some for you! Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, what else do you have? Lepricavark (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a whole lot of standings templates, like Template:2000 Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association football standings, that need to be edited to make use of Template:Cfb link, as Template:1970 Missouri Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings does. Also, the rankings in templates like Template:2008 Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association football standings should be punctuated with "No." not "#"; see Template:2008 Big Ten football standings. These two issues really only effect lower division (NCAA D-II, NCAA D-III, NAIA) standings templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'm about to step away from my computer, but I'll look into those issues later on. Is there a backlog category for either one, or will I just have to check around? Lepricavark (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

No backlog category that I know of. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The whole Missouri Intercollegiate Athletic Association history needs be checked out. Other than that, I'd start with 2004 and forward toward the present. That should get you most of what needs to be cleaned up on these two issues. Most of the templates older than 2004 are ones that I have created. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll plan to start on it after I've finished up finals this week. Lepricavark (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks to both of you. Y'all make the wiki work. I for one am glad. John from Idegon (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

John, you're welcome and thanks for you efforts as well Happy holidays! Jweiss11 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well L. MarnetteD|Talk 02:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much and a delightful Christmas season to you as well! Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for your good wishes as well :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Lepricavark!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hey man! Happy holidays to you.

I was just looking over my talk page archives and saw that it was seven years ago when we found out we'd gotten Joe West (umpire) to GA. Good times! I wish I had more time these days for sustained content work. I'm mostly just around in bursts for things like vandalism cleanup. Hope all is well! Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I can hardly believe it was that long ago! I don't do much content work either these days. My niche seems to be various gnoming tasks. I'm doing well and I hope that this Christmas season finds you happy and healthy! Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Lepricavark!

Happy New Year!

Hello Lepricavark:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

MMXX Lunar Calendar

Lepricavark,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year – news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)