User talk:Novaredant

Novaredant, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Novaredant! 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 Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ken Klippenstein: Revision history

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Ways to improve Will Sommer

Hello, Novaredant,

Thank you for creating Will Sommer.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article would merit some independent viewpoints about Sommer as a journalist, some evaluations of his work and reporting. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Whiteguru,

Thanks for the feedback. I have tried to address the issues raised with the addition of more external or independent sources to the Will Sommer page. Can you review the page and provide any additional feedback on further changes if they are needed? Novaredant (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Ella Emhoff

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Ella Emhoff, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Hello Elizium23,

I have added the content back on the page with sources, so now there is no reason for it being removed again.
Novaredant (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You Signed Up For This

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to You Signed Up for This, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I did move the page You Signed Up For This for a good reason as that was the original name of the page when it was first created before numerous editors came in and move-warred the page to 'You Signed Up for This'. There are many problems with trying to move the article to 'You Signed Up for This' as it is not the actual title of the album and Wikipedia editors should not be able to unilaterally change the name of an album. The official title is You Signed Up For This which should take precedent over the opinions of single Wikipedia editors. There are no sources that refer to the album as 'You Signed Up for This' with 'for' not capitalised. Trying to move the album to 'You Signed Up for This' is not supported by evidence and it is a policy of Wikipedia that all information must be able to be corroborated with independent sources; see WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL. --Novaredant^talk 21:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Helen (let’s talk) 22:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:YouSignedUpForThisAltCover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YouSignedUpForThisAltCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at You Signed Up For This. 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 ~~~~}}. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up note to my block: Hello, as well as temporarily withdrawing your editing right, I have just restored You Signed Up For This to its original version as a WP:REDIRECT created by Ss112 on the grounds that we cannot have two separate live articles about the one topic. The original version (You Signed Up for This that you created takes precedence as being made two days earlier on June 16th as far as I can determine. You may correct me if I am wrong on that point. You will definitely have your editing rights removed for longer if you subsequently make any attempt to reinstate it from that Redirect, as your edit warring and creation of a second duplicate version were both highly disruptive, and these must not occur again. My advice is simply to calm down. Nobody is going to fail to find the article with either spelling, and there were good MOS style grounds for keeping it with one format. There also appears to be an admin-closed consensus by BD2412 at this time to retain lower case letting for the word 'for'. You may discuss your rationale for altering it, but it's an extraordinarily tiny hill upon which to die when others are telling you not to edit war and to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. You may disagree with the interpretation of those guidelines, but you may not disrupt the project and waste my and everyone else's time by this switching back and forth and by trying to maintain two virtually identical live articles in order to get your way. I have not 'admin-protected' the redirect at this time, but will recommend doing so if further disruption continues. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To note, you cannot evade your block by editing logged-out. aeschylus (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Novaredant, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

aeschylus (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for block evasion and continued edit warring as IP, as you did at You Signed Up For This. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been wrongly blocked with the accusation that I have been editing logged out or as an IP which I have not done. I have also been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet account but I am not able to defend myself.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Now checkuser blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:39, 28 June 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been wrongly blocked based on the actions of three IP addresses taht I have absolutey no connection to and the block seems to solely be based on a conspiratorial accusations. If you look at the User contributions for 116.206.35.30, you will see that they have only made a few edits in its history and all but one is on pages that I have not even visited let alone edited. The only commonality is between my account and the IP adddresses is that they both have edited You Signed Up For This. The IP address 116.206.35.30 has written their one edit summary on the page in broken English, saying "I am not evade the block, please". My actual IP address is 86.163.253.99 which is not the same as the two IP addresses that I have falsely been accused on using. Wikipedia moderators are so full of themselves that they probably won't believe this anyway so I might as well stop editing because I'm not welcome and I am being blocked for unsubstantiated reasons based on no evidence. Maybe you should read WP:NOTHUMAN which clearly states that "IP addresses are not people".

Decline reason:

The checkuser tool indicates that you are a sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2021 (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.

You are, however, rightly blocked for being a WP:SOCK of User:Srodgers1701. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

PhilKnight (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 44947

UTRS appeal #44947 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 45189

UTRS appeal #45189 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:YouSignedUpForThisAltCover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YouSignedUpForThisAltCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]