User talk:Royiswariii/From the Vault 1

October 2024

Hello, I'm AirshipJungleman29. An edit that you recently made to Template:Did you know nominations/Chocolate in savory cooking seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

GAN for Risa Hontiveros

Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Risa Hontiveros for Good article status. You do not appear to have made significant edits to the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. Current practice is that only editors who have significantly contributed to the article are able to nominate it (see the nomination instructions). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page. Thank you. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

CSD tagging

You cannot tag a draft with WP:G13 if it is not more than six months since its last edit. Please do not revert admins who decline your CSD requests. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but thanks for correcting me :) Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 00:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pang War

Hello Royiswariii, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pang War, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Whpq! Can I at least move to the draft to edit more and to review it at AfC? Royiswariii (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is now a sourced stub, so I see no reason for it to be at draft. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is noted, thanks! Royiswariii (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:University of Santo Tomas/GA4

Royiswariii, you opened this review nearly two months ago, and have yet to begin it. In the meantime, it would have been eligible for the current ongoing GAN backlog drive, but that drive has only ten days to go, and the chances it might be picked up if made available are growing slimmer by the day. If you aren't going to do the review, it isn't fair to the nominator to keep it locked up like this. Please post something to the review page soon, whether it is the actual review or your withdrawal so that another reviewer can be found. Thank you for your prompt consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of Project 7 contestants

Hi, the red line of Draft:Project 7 is the seperated article that i am planning to use it for, its not completed yet, but if you want you can help me with the link.

Here Draft:List of Project 7 contestants HongLock (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:DIALux

Hello Royiswariii, thanks you very much for taking the time to review the DIALux draft article. I really appreciate your help on improving it. Could you please help me to understand why you think that is not relevant for wikipedia? Please let me know in detail what you are missing and how it can be improved. The topic itself is already present in 5 other languages. Over 400 international lamp and luminaire manufacturers, including global players such as Ledvance, Philips and Artemide provide their models for the DIALux platform. None of these brands would take this effort if this software would not be a reliable and accepted tool for lighting planning and simulation. The article contains references to research projects all over the world. How can the relevance for a mention be further increased? All of the reasons for rejection mentioned so far were understandable, but now there is a lack of details. Thanks for your help! 2A02:908:1C24:5700:2948:7787:EE9E:1EB3 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 2A02:908:1C24:5700:2948:7787:EE9E:1EB3!

Your Draft Article has stop to resubmit due to multiple declining of your draft article.

Frist, WP:COI, WP:NOTPROMO, fails on WP:GNG.

Second, because of IP Address edits, maybe some reviewers skeptical to accept it. There is a comment of a AfC reviewer that your draft article sounds like a introduction of a software and it fails on WP:NPOV and I believe that the tone wasn't an encyclopedia article.

Third, As I said you got multiple decline of your draft article and it's still the same what reviewers say to your draft article (WP:NPOV, WP:BROCHURE or WP:NOTPROMO and WP:RELIABILITY).

This is the summary the reason why I stop to resubmit your draft article, I hope you understand.

IF you have any questions, don't hesitate to visit my talk page, Thanks! Royiswariii (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Royiswariii, you stopped resubmitting because the article has been declined in the past?

This is the reason? Really? Did you see that there were many changes to remove all existing objections? It is no longer the state it was once rejected. I can't understand how you blame the rejection on other people's rejection history. It's about the current status of the article and your assessment. Saying it's being rejected because it's always been rejected is a bit odd. Unfortunately, I cannot see a real reason. All objections raised so far have been responded to promptly.

Can one of the last reviewers perhaps see a positive change? @Theroadislong @AlphaBetaGamma @SafariScribe

I edit the article on several devices and use different networks. (Computer, tablet, phone) This is the reason why my IP Address might vary. Perhaps, I should have registered before but now it looks like registration is no longer necessary for me because there is not button to resubmit any more. 2A02:908:1C24:5700:4CDE:ADB1:3F9E:FD6E (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I closely check your references

ResearchGate is not reliable sources in Wikipedia because some research papers are not undergone for peer review and it may have a conflict, so quickly fails in WP:GNG.

HAL is not reliable too because anyone can upload without undergone peer review, still WP:GNG.

To be fair, some references that you added is considered as reliable as long as they are credibility and significant coverage. Common mistake of submitting in Articles for Creation that they didn't check the sources if they are credible or not, and citing a Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. quickly fails on WP:BLOG and it may nominate for speedy deletion in mainspace, in draft article if they use that, the draft might not to resubmit again.

In your case, you have a slightly improve but the sources are still not reliable.

I know it really upset but i'm following the rules of AfC, if you want a help you may go to Teahouse or in AfC Help desk.

I hope you understand, thanks! Royiswariii (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.

In probably all references there are scientific institutions that offer the same content that I referred to Researchgate/HAL for. I prefered Researchgate because it is generally freely accessible to everyone.

You can view the work there even without an account from a scientific institution. Unfortunately, I was not aware that Researchgate is not a reliable source.

If I had received this information, I would have changed the references to point directly to the institutions. 2A02:908:1C24:5700:4CDE:ADB1:3F9E:FD6E (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What's going on?

Hi, I presume you were talking about the plot synopsis quote for Tinā. I'd attributed it to the Film Festival (no author was avaliable) but now I understand that there can be no circumstances a quote of that length can be used for a plot synopsis. I've removed it and rewritten it in my own words. I apologise for wasting your time. Can you shut your investigation now please Dhantegge (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Issuing an inappropriate warning

I've reverted the you issued as the article had NO external links at all. Please pay careful attention to what you are doing. The number of visits I've made to you talk page about your mistakes indicates to me that you need to slow down and consider what you are doing before you do it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Request on 14:05:56, 24 October 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Iochone

• Iochone (talk · contribs)
  • User:Iochone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am wondering if you could help me get an article published. I am being told it is because of a copyright violation but I worked hard to NOT copy the article in question but to rewrite it matter of factly appropriately for Wikipedia. Unfortunately it is one of the few sources foer the information so I did have to rely on its content. Is there something wrong with that? Not sure how to proceed. Please let me know what I can do with the sources for the article to make it more acceptable. I think it is worthy of inclusion. I first noticed a need for this article when I was looking at the wife of Henry Fonda's biography and there was a blatant error linking to an incorrect page so I tried to correct that. Then I found an interesting wealth of information about the topic that could be related to many other pages and did not have its own entry and so I attempted to incorporate it into a new page.

the page I created was https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Craig_House_Sanitarium&action=edit&redlink=1 the person who seems to have deleted it is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa

Can you help? thanks.

I would be happy to work with her to correct whatever is wrong with the page but I am not sure what it is.

thanks, Isabel

Isabel Ochone (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iochone!

I check the deletion logs and you have a copyvio and they link what's copyrighted. Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons take seriously the copyright violation here WP:COPYVIO because wikipedia is a Nonprofit organization under Creative Commons Attributio-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, I recommended to make a draft article here.

If you still have a questions, leave a message here or go in Teahouse there are many experienced editors too!

Thanks! Royiswariii (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

You tagged Katie Bales with both WP:A7, and WP:A1. The context (A1) was obvious. She is a law professor at the University of Bristol. As already stated before, please read and understand the speedy deletion criteria before tagging. Also taking a shotgun approach of spraying multiple criteria are not helpful especially when they are wrong. -- Whpq (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought it was a no context of WP:A1 because of no citations. Royiswariii (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read what A1 states. There is nothing about a lack of citations. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so I think it's just failed on Notability? Royiswariii (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The article was deleted WP:A7 but not for failing notability. Please read criterion carefully. -- Whpq (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks for clarifying, and I will be more careful in the future. Royiswariii (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Whpq:,

I just looked at the other posts here and noticed that it's not just my Draft:DIALux that has received strange treatment. I'm afraid in my case it was also the shotgun approach and unfortunately my article has been finally rejected. (see above) Could you maybe take a look at this sometime?

Please bear with me for still not having an registered account. 2A02:908:1C24:5700:CC68:A30:1014:18D2 (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio cleanup

If you spot copyvio, removing the link to the copied source and exchanging it for a citation needed tag is not the solution! You need to remove the text that was copied from that source. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Improper Copyright rejection

It seems your recent action rejecting Article for Submission titled Draft:Immunocapitalism on the basis of copyright violations was absolutely unjustified. Every material taken from other sources was properly cited to the appropriate source. Based on your action, you may not understand the appropriate policies of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content nor https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations and, in my opinion, interpret very restrictively (falsely so perhaps) the meaning of the word "brief". I will trim the already brief quote and resubmit. And if you have objections to what I'm saying, please explicitly explain what part of what I'm saying you take issue with and why, instead of just restating policy or your reason for rejecting the article. Wickster12345 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Justin Johnson

Hello there,

You declined this draft here with some vague reasonings. You should not do that. Drafts should not be declined solely on the basis that they contain bare URLs as references. While properly formatted citations are encouraged, the presence of bare URLs is not a valid reason for decline. Instead, contributors should be encouraged to improve the references for clarity and longevity, but the draft’s substance and relevance should remain the primary focus during review. You could have just left a comment there. Your decline removed the draft from the eyes of other reviewer who could have verified the sourcing. Regards. Hitro talk 14:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Royiswariii! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Roy wants to create a "humorous essay" using WP, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:University of Santo Tomas/GA4

Hi there, I'm so sorry to hear you're having a bad time. I'm going to delete this review page so that someone else can take over the review for you, since you never made any comments. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Hugs and deepest sympathy. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Appeal to unblock

Hello, EdJohnston

I noticed that you are checkuser, could you help me to unblock or check me? I was block because of accusations on violating WP:NOSHARE in my account but obviously i was the only using this account. Is there any proof that i am the only one using this account? (This account was connected on two phones and one computer)

Plus, I have a GA Review so I need it as soon as possible because I will have a wikibreak for a couple of weeks, also, i am AfC Reviewer and I don't wanna have a block logs because it will ruined reputation of my account and it may not accept in other user rights here so I need to fix this.

thank you very much!

(I add on my own page, I can't add on your talks since im blocked) Royiswariii Talk! 09:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Royiswariii. Recently you

added the following to your user page:

This is Royiswariii account, currently being used with his permission for minor edits and monitoring talk pages etc. He granted temporary control this account due to grieving and loss of someone, for this time, this account will assist you to any concerns. If any errors occcur, we kindly ask for understanding and pardon. Thank you.

This literally violates WP:NOSHARE, so it's not obvious how a checkuser could help you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

it was intended as humorous joke notice, but is there anything proof that i'm only using this account? like any other options to prove that im really the owner and no ones using this account except to me? You can ask me anything questions about my account or other that will prove that i'm the only using this account, Thank you. Royiswariii Talk! 15:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sharing your account.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Whpq (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you are grieving a loss. I suggest you take a wikibreak, and return to editing when you feel up to the task. I have blocked your account because you advised that your account has been handed over to somebody else. You may not share your account.-- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Whpq It's just a false notice, I'm finishing my task in GA, then, I'm on wikibreak for a couple of weeks, forgot to add {{humor}}. Sorry if i'm too insensitive to joke a sharing account. Royiswariii Talk! 02:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

False notice in my userpage, trying to fun despite of my sadness, I need to finish my GA Review to Hard to Love (Blackpink song) then i will wikibreak for a couple of weeks, i just forgot the {{humor}}. I'm apologize for my insensitive joke. Royiswariii Talk! 03:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC).

Decline reason:

That was an extremely poor joke to make(even if you had tagged it as humorous), as we now have no way to know if you are the original operator of the account or someone who took control of it and is pretending to be you. I suggest you see WP:COMPROMISED; perhaps you can convince a steward or checkuser that you are the original operator. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Your GA nomination of Cherry on Top (Bini song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cherry on Top (Bini song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RFNirmala -- RFNirmala (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Appeal again and review again

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

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

---

Request reason:

I'm appeal the recent block on my account for allegedly violating the account sharing policy. I understand the importance of Wikipedia rules to ensure the integrity of contributions and to prevent disruption and I am fully support on all of guidlin,es, and I want to clarify that I am the sole owner of my account. I believe my account was blocked due to a misunderstanding based on an edit notice on my user page, which was mean to be a joke while I was on a wiki break. I regret that I add that on my userpage, and this may have been misinterpreted as indicating that I was sharing my account to others. I reached out to a administrator and checkuser, EdJohnston for assistance, and he said my edit notice was on the userpage, but as I said it was a joke. But, I said that I am the owner and I can give all my information and questions to me to prove that I am really the owner but i got no reply. I take Wikipedia rules very seriously and I assure you that I have never shared my account to anyone never and never. If you let me to unblock my account, I will avoid making any statements that could lead to confusion in the future, and I will be much more careful with my actions. And please let me know if there's any further information I can provide to verify my identity as sole account holer. Thank you very much! Royiswariii Talk! 03:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've reviewed this situation and I would find it patently ridiculous if it weren't so ... I don't know a better word than inhumane. We have here an editor with absolutely no history of issues, an AFC helper, and a record of featured content, who suffered a recent loss and left a notice that yeah maybe they shouldn't have, but did that really deserve a block? WP:NOSHARING suggests actions that should be taken if an account is suspected of being shared, which include requiring the user to stop, asking them to change their password, and depending on the circumstances, sanctions up to and including blocking. We didn't do any of that, we just blocked with no attempt to educate or warn the user at all and then told them there was no possible way they could ever be unblocked. When they tried to explain, which is what unblock requests are for, they were callously dismissed.

I am unblocking per WP:NOTPUNITIVE - there is no disruption being prevented here, and one could argue that the block itself is disruptive. I am also aware of and ignoring their sock account, which they created after administrators here told them there was no path to unblocking, because our rules normally permit a person using a shared account to stop using it and create a sole account instead; I will be leaving that account blocked, however.

Royiswariii: I am sorry for your loss, and for the way you have been treated here. Sometimes we administrators fail to see past Teh Rulez to the real human beings who are actually impacted by them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How do we know that you aren't someone who took control of this account and are pretending to be the original owner? The answer is, we don't know and have no way to know. If claiming a joke was made would work to get a compromised account unblocked, everyone would claim that. That's why I said that- if it was a joke- it was a very poor joke to make. Imagine if this was your bank account and not your Wikipedia account. Would you joke about giving others access to your bank account? The next admin will decide how to handle this- but I'm not sure there is a path forward here. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment:Hello 331dot! I understand my joke was too far and unacceptable. I can see now why my edit notice was a mistake, and it led to a confusion about my identity and control over the account.

I can assure you that I am the original and only user of this account, and I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding. I now understand that even joking about account access is inappropriate and insensitive, and I won't make a similar jokes again in the future.

If there's anything more I can prove my identity r commitment to Wikipedia policies, I am 100% willing to cooperate. I am here to contribute and will avoid actions that could cause any further misunderstanding.

Here's the suggestions to confirm my identity that I am the real owner:

• CheckUser Verification

  Past Edit Histrory

  Email Address (if can) My account creation details

  Past request rights here in Wikipedia (it may declined or accepted)

I hope we can resolve this, thank you for your consideration.

Add: My IP Address User:175.176.26.112 was have a alternative account notice , I added that I think August or September (I didn't check the history) But due to randomly changing my IP Address because of my ISP, It may or not help to you. So It may help this or convince you to unblock me. Royiswariii Talk! 09:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, 331dot! I'm noticing you again and to let you know if you agree for checkuser review to my account? Or at least see my suggestions to confirm my identity. Thank you. Royiswariii Talk! 03:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@331dot the request was declined as premature, but you may see the questions here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir Kenneth Kho I didn't actively "refuse" anything(i.e. a specific statement that I was not answering their questions). I can't give or deny permission for a checkuser to do anything. I already told the user what they could do, I didn't think it necessary to pile on further. I wish the user had come to me first or at least used the correct forum with their grievance. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we just disagree on what "refuse" means, and "I can't give or deny permission for a checkuser to do anything" was the reason I don't think the case was out of process. Clearly arbs disagreed, so it is dismissed here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: - it looks from the above that Royiswariii asked you twice for clarification on your comments, and you never responded, so your assertion that they didn't approach you it discuss with you is untrue. I also think your initial comments were unnecessarily assuming of bad faith on an relatively new editor with a good history of editing. It was a poor joke, certainly, and hopefully Roy has learned their lesson, but as Ivan vector says above, it was nothing rising to the level of a need for instant blocking or outright refusal to entertain an unblock. This isn't an issue that needs to go to arbcom or anywhere else, I think a line has been drawn under it, but I do think a mild WP:TROUT is owed to yourself for being less than collegiate on this occasion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru Happy to be trouted, but I respectfully disagree that I was not "collegiate" or anything other than polite and civil. As I said, I didn't think I should pile on further by repeating what I had already said, and I can't give or deny permission to a CU(who I thought would take up the matter). It seems to me that my choice here was to 1) turn loose a potentially compromised account and risk my reputation or 2) tell them to use the means described at WP:COMPROMISED to establish they were in control. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding checkuser: generally we're not permitted to check an account at the account's request, that is a carve-out in the English checkuser policy (the global policy allows it but English checkusers cannot). Royiswariii pinged me with that request and I declined. I didn't notice until later that 331dot also had suggested it, which might have led me to a different approach, and we do check unblock requests where violations of the multiple accounts policy are in play. I still opted not to check since a) I had already declined; b) checkuser isn't really all that useful in detecting this sort of compromise where someone shares their account with someone they know; but really c) I've been chasing a particularly nasty troll all week who earns a new deserved block about every five minutes, and it put me in a bad mood to see someone who really wants to contribute backed into a corner from procedural hand-wringing. I was probably unduly harsh in my unblock rationale, and I apologize for that.

Anyway, I dislike blame-seeking exercises, they don't really help anyone and distract from the work of building the encyclopedia. At the end of the day I think that everyone tried to do the right thing here, but sometimes we need reminding that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and has no firm rules. Let's all go fix a "citation needed" tag. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser Review

Hello, Ivanvector! I'm requesting to checkuser review to my account due to blocking of my violation of WP:NOSHARING. If you have any questions to my account, I will try my best to answer as I can. Thank you very much! Royiswariii Talk! 22:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the local policy does not permit us to check accounts by request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand.

But thanks for unblock me and seek a attention to me because it takes too long to review my account whether if i violated or not. I really apprciated it! Royiswariii Talk! 02:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cherry on Top (BiniMo Remix).webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cherry on Top (BiniMo Remix).webp. 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) 03:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Case request declined

Hi Royiswariii,

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can then ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard or the administrative action review page for the action to be reviewed.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. SilverLocust 💬 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Turma do Folclore

Hello Royiswariii, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Turma do Folclore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

I noticed that you tagged War 2 (2025 film) for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag from the page because it does not meet the criterion or criteria specified. Please fully read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before tagging pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. It didn't meet the criteria for A1. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)