User talk:1033Forest/Archive 2

Liquid crap listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Liquid crap. Since you had some involvement with the Liquid crap redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MB 21:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey
Hi Colgatepony234

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: http://ucla.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bI9nxWdVDoNZZKR

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted your edit on SpongeBob SquarePants (season 12) because that is not the correct title of the episode. Wait until the official title is confirmed. Beasting123 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Please delete. Cabayi (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Materialscientist (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds good, but can you tell us (in your own words) what a reliable source is? For example, is the IMDb a reliable source?  Why or why not?  You can just reply below without opening a new unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. So a reliable source is a published source which has been checked for accuracy before being published, and these are usually articles from books, magazines, or articles from the Internet that have been checked for accuracy. I now understand that the sources that I have used for some redirects, like funnysigns.net are definitely not reliable sources because they rely on user-generated content. Although the information I did get for my edits to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 12) to add confirmed episodes to the list, even though it may have come from a social media site, it is from one of the people who run the show. Colgatepony234 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you expand a little bit on what you mean by "checked for accuracy"? Also, please keep in mind that pictures on the internet are frequently faked.  I can upload a picture of myself driving a Ferrari on the moon, but the chances are pretty slim that I've done so.  Also, vendors sometimes lie.  Be careful of automatically trusting a primary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I mean is the information in these reliable sources has to have been checked and verified to be factual and accurate, and has all the majority views on the specific topic covered. And as that article about reliable sources said if Wikipedia does not have any reliable source on the topic then I shouldn't make a page on it, and I understand that part now. I understand these funnysigns redirects are not a reliable source, and I know not to make pages redirecting from that name again. Also about IMDb if it's a reliable source or not, it's not really that reliable, because information on there about some movies, TV shows, or web episodes can be added by its users, and so are the reviews that people post on this site, so the site relies on mostly user-generated content. Colgatepony234 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but who is checking these sources and verifying their content? What job title would you look for in the "about us" or "staff" page to tell if a website has (ostensibly) been fact-checked?  If you can answer that, you're most of the way to being able to spot a reliable source.  By the way, only our articles have to be neutral and include majority views.  Reliable sources can be biased. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had to search this one up, and two job titles that I found for this kind of thing are "associate editor" and "editorial assistant." Since these people are the assistants of people who write articles in newspapers or magazines, they assist in checking for facts and verifying that the statistics that they have found out are accurate. Colgatepony234 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please put my unblock request on hold while you wait for the comment from the blocking administrator. Colgatepony234 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre redirects
I think I see a Neelix 2.0. Remember the Neelix incident, anyone? PrussianOwl (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

About my redirects
I now see and understand why some of the more bizarre redirects (like Diet ice or Tree blood) got removed, and I know not to make those again. These can stay deleted. But in that mass deletion, all of my 100 or so redirects got deleted, including some useful ones that I've made to aid searchers, or some plausible misspellings or alternative names. Some of them like Hoolahoop, or Curved yellow fruit were even nominated for RFD and ended with a Keep or No consensus result. And some of them were even plural forms of other titles. So in short, I understand why the more bizarre ones got deleted, but did every single one of my redirects, including the useful ones to aid readers, really need to be deleted?

Also do you have any questions for me I have to answer, before I can consider submitting an unblock? Colgatepony234 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't be modest, there were nearly 270 of them, dealing with every type of condiment, stick (stix), bodily function, consistency of excrement, wristband, numerical variety of Pepsi & Coke, and letter of the alphabet - prefixed with "Letter" in both lower and upper cases just in case someone was reading the wiki without being aware of the concept of letters. 9 redirects remain. We don't need petty redirects to help searchers, the search tools work really well. All you were doing was giving typos a false legitimacy, and constraining users to one interpretation of your search phrase where many may exist. We don't need funnysigns.net replicated on the wiki. This is an encyclopedia. Cabayi (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, some of this user's redirects were plausible, even though some were kind of silly. I don't think it's a good idea to nuke all of them even if some did fail WP:G5. Redirects are cheap, after all. PrussianOwl (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , none of them were deleted under G5 because G5 does not apply. Your comment here has clarified for me the basis for your flawed argument at Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I suggest you carefully re-read the criteria of G5. Cabayi (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wasn't this user topic-banned from redirects? They mostly got deleted for some criteria, the ones that weren't nonsense or bizarre, but I don't remember exactly what. PrussianOwl (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I've checked the history of this page, nothing's been deleted. Please point to the topic ban. Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * is right. While I understand why some of the more bizarre redirects got deleted, I did make some plausible ones but those got deleted too. Like as I said, Hoolahoop, which I created in 2018, went through an RFD and the result was keep due to it being a plausible phonetic misspelling of "hula hoop". Colgatepony234 (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this exact page or userspace in general, I mean ColgatePony234's redirects. I know they were deleted en masse for something, but I don't remember what offhand. I do know some of these were silly ("magical poop-stealing water chair") but a good amount were plausible redirects ("Letter Z" -> Z). PrussianOwl (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , if a topic ban had been put into effect against Colgatepony234 anywhere then Colgatepony234 would have been notified about it here. No notification here = no topic ban anywhere.
 * "I don't remember what offhand" - then visit one of them (Going poo, Writing stick, Pimple-popping, Liquid fecal matter...), they all state quite clearly why they were deleted. Cabayi (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * facepalm* Duh, I should have remembered it was an R3. I objected to it on a few pages as I didn't think the criterion applied in that particular case. Honestly, I think this user acted in good faith and should be unbanned. PrussianOwl (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If that was good faith then the situation looks more like a case of WP:CIR. Like you, I can no longer see the deleted articles in Colgatepony234's contributions history but I had the distinct impression that C234 was emboldened by the amount of liquidy poop they had created without too much pushback and was creating more. Cabayi (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also point out, C234 is blocked, not banned. Cabayi (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, is right. While I do understand why my bizarre ones got deleted, all the other ones I made that are actually plausible redirects, I made these in good faith. Yes I am telling the truth by saying this. I understand why the bizarre ones are gone, and these can stay deleted but the rest of the non-bizarre ones I made, most of them are plausible redirects that I feel like they didn't need to be deleted. Colgatepony234 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an interesting approach. Good luck justifying your liquid crap in your unblock request. Cabayi (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I'd like to mention that there's a reason why I made some redirects. There are pages like Letter B and Letter U that still exist, so I made redirects for all the other 24 letters of the alphabet so there can be one for every letter. And Mayochup is Heinz's brand of fry sauce, which makes it an alternative name for the sauce, so I made a page redirecting to that too. I understand why the bizarre ones (like the ones I got from funnysigns.net, I learned from it and know not to make those again) got deleted, but really, looking through what got deleted (I got all the notifications in my email), a lot of them were actually good redirects that I made to aid readers when they type this particular name in the search or address bar. Well, that's almost 2 years of work down the drain... Colgatepony234 (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Letter B is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. You know the difference.
 * Letter U... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
 * Mayochup - this is an encyclopedia, not Heinz's sales catalogue.
 * "almost 2 years of work down the drain" You should have been stopped earlier, before you'd invested so much effort in them. Seeing them one at a time, for the most part, they weren't awful, nor were they encyclopedic. One at a time nobody would be too bothered. In an ideal world you would have picked up on the mumber of them that were being nominated for deletion. Seen as a whole, they needed to be cleared up.
 * If you're going to make a successful bid for unblocking I'd advise you to show you've learnt from the experience, and that you are aware of what makes for a reliable, verifiable, independent citation, i.e. not Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, funnysigns.net, or other WP:UGC. Cabayi (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm blocked how am I supposed to show I learned from my blocking experience? I already read the link and understand what makes a reliable source now. So all I need to do is show I learned from it. Colgatepony234 (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Show in your unblock request. I'm not suggesting you go sockpuppeting. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Show in your unblock request. I'm not suggesting you go sockpuppeting. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mayochup, even though the idea makes my stomach turn, is a plausible redirect. So are Letter A - Letter Z. PrussianOwl (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi
I just wanna remind you that yes you see 48 episode segments confirmed, but theirs still confirmed information that the twelfth season of SpongeBob has 54 episode segments, it’s that the titles for 6 segments haven’t been confirmed yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaldiBasicsFan (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't true anymore. All the leaked episodes that got confirmed, are all part of two-episode pairs (except SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout and Escape from Beneath Glove World), as found on a Nickelodeon Poland sitemap. Hence it's 48, not 54 anymore. Colgatepony234 (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to "System time"
Thank you for providing a source for your edit to "System time". Would you be willing to format the citation in a more helpful manner, so that if the website changes in the future there will be a better chance of correcting the link rot.

I improved your citation in the article " Time formatting and storage bugs‎". Please see that article for an example of how to do it. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at SpongeBob SquarePants (season 12). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはColgatepony234たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 02:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2023
why are you making so many disambiguation links? what are you doing?  DM5 Pedia  20:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's the sandbox I'm just testing stuff, turning words in my sentences to links. 1033Forest (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * nevermind  DM5 Pedia  20:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Resemble" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resemble&redirect=no Resemble] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pinkalicious & Peterrific, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WHRO. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)