User talk:Always forever/Archive 2

Bilgi University
Please be careful repeatedly deleting information about academic freedom at Bilgi University. If you want to add information, do so, but do not delete this information without a good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.179.232 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is Mr. Malik? I deleted non-npov information that didn't conform to policies. I am an experienced editor and have not vandalized anything. Please watch what you say. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes.  Joel.Miles925  17:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe he is referring to the Malik that gave you that barnstar on your userpage. I would say not, though, as he hasn't edited in 7 months. Woodstop45  &bull;  Talk   (Contribs) 17:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Woodstop45 Ah, yes... I don't know why that would apply to me or why he is messaging me though. I did remove that, but I had my reasons (as you can see, that edit wasn't too very clean). Could you try to explain what he is saying? I seem to be a bit confused by his statement above (It is a bit poorly worded). Thank you for your help!  Joel.Miles925  17:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know why that message would apply to you, but, I would say he is messaging you because you undid his edit of adding some poor written statements. His edits appear to be like a timeline, and he seems to have been editing this article excessively for the past 2 days. He has alos been editing since August 12th, and the only edits he has made were on Universities, and a Technical Institute. It seems to be a COI, except for the fact he seems to be in Washington D.C. So what he is saying seems to be that you removing information from the Silencing Dissent section on the article, which he says in vandalism, which you removed without a reason. That is what I believe he was saying. Woodstop45  &bull;  Talk   (Contribs) 18:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Woodstop45 I see. I removed that edit not because it was poorly written, but (as the welcome on his talk page says) because it wasn't npov and was a COI. Just another IP that hasn't taken the time to look at policies before editing. Cheers!  Joel.Miles925  18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User: There was no conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.179.232 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Helo
Hello Om (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Is there anything I can help you with? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Helo please dont delete my page. Its not promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmaom123 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's page creation guidelines. Also, why do you seem to have 2 usernames? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Hello, why are you thinking that this page is for speedy deletation? VuXman talk 17:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it reads like a company website. I think it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion as a promotional article.Joel.Miles925 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you send me a link to specific guidelines that I should follow to prevent deletion? it is my  Also it would be helpful to answer me on my own talk page my messages on my talk page because it is hard to follow your answers and it is also a custom as far as I am aware. Thank you. :D-- VuXman  talk 00:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please go to WP: Neutral point of view to find guidelines to avoid deletion. Also, sorry I'm leaving messages on my talk page. I simply sometimes forget about the rule and leave a discussion on my own page. Cheers! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Article Lead
Hi Joel, can you please explain what an article lead is? A quick example would be very helpful. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asanisimasafilms (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

An article lead is the section of an article that appears before the first actual section. Most articles have one simply as a summary of the page ahead. Also, I noticed you need to add new sections when you go to someone's talk page (to avoid confusion). I did that for you this time, but please do it in the future. Also please sign your posts with four tildes. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

DJ Sackmann Page
Please advise me on how I can make this professional page less of a "promotion" as you put it. It is not intended to be a promotion but informative for people who are looking for the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garysays (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a forum. It is not to be used for an advertisement or a "soapbox". Your article made it seem as though DJ Sackmann was "surperior", a view which is not supported by the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia article guidelines and try again. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Joel. I am actively attempting to edit the page - I see where you are coming from with teh "soapbox" talk. Edits to come! Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garysays (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

An American Holiday
Your AfD for the article added to an existing AfD. Please renominate the article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Formula One
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Formula One 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 Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Formula One
The article Formula One you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Formula One for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Hello J. You left this message on Bbb23's talk page. If this is the edit that you are referring to then it is the IP that made the POV edit - not Bbb23. If I am incorrect then my apologies but I thought you should check on this to clear up any misunderstanding that may arise from place the warning on the talk page of a long time, highly productive editor. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Local Government Website document considered inappropriate source
Hello, you reversed my edits on, "because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia". I just wanted to know why documents from a local government website are considered "inappropriate for an encyclopedia". Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.34.94 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the local government would probably be a bit biased towards their own city and which residents are notable, don't you think? Also please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing what you consider 'defamatory'. According to Wikipedia's own definition, defamation is using slander or libelous content to intentionally negate a person or entity's image, of which the cited material is neither. If you take a moment to read the cited page/document, you will see that the information that was presented is not untrue or libelous or defamatory, and is in fact taken from a State Judicial document.

I ask that you please review the edit that was made for correctness before marking it as 'defamatory', as it is not.

If all that is required is that the language be re-worded, there is no problem, but if however the content was removed because you deem it 'defamatory', I kindly ask that you review Wikipedia's own definition of defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.253.238.165 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend to mark it as defamatory, i marked it as spam. It just so happens that the template message uses "defamatory" as part of the message. You are using your own artful interpretation of this conversation to transfer focus away from the fact that your edit was biased. Again, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was applied to the wrong conversation. The page in question is the page titled Rick Baxter. 67.177.129.38 (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC) concerned patron

"if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again..."
Adding categories to terms counts as targeted harassment here? I realise the terms the pages were for have some controversy surrounding them, but I'm pretty sure my additions were neutral and appropriate for them. I also suggested similar category additions on protected pages - I'm not sure if moderator bots are a thing here but I can see how that could get falsely flagged if they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClocksmithPie (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Mind explaining why you tripped the abuse filters for obscenities and harassment then? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I just joined today and submitted two edit requests to suggest adding an additional category to pages for two slurs. I'm not sure if saying them by name will trigger a harassment filter as well so I won't say them directly. One was for the b-word used against women and one was for the f-word used against men who love men (like me). Each edit request page contained the article name in the first line, next to "{{edit semi-protected|", which an automatic filter might not be checking for.

I also submitted categories two other pages today that were not protected and the result of that was feedback that a couple of the categories needed better support and were rejected, and one was kept that had enough support. While I initially though those may be the reason I was flagged (the words are controversial), after further thought it seemed like it could be the result of an automatic filter. ClocksmithPie (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, would it be crazy to ask if you can check the logs for the filter to see what set it off? It seems like looking at the message(s) in question would clear things up pretty quick. ClocksmithPie (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. First off I had no way of knowing what would have tripped the abuse filter. Second I also have no way of checking the diffs of the edits because you can't in the edit filter log (or at least for the obscenity filter). Sorry for any inconvenience. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you don't have a way to check, but thanks for getting back to me on this. Take care. ClocksmithPie (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

reverting a talk page
Why did you revert my edit on a talk page (supermarket chains)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.54.133 (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You accidentally made the edit on the actual article. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No I didn't, you can see it in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.54.133 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can. The Article history. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's you're revert on the talk page, and here's article history, showing nobody touched it since two weeks ago. 87.70.1.136 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. This time I was the confused one. And thank you for signing your posts! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Maderia Beach
Why did you revert the library section? FlyerMan (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, you deleted a section without providing a valid edit summary. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I removed the section because I moved the article. FlyerMan (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Watch Your Reverts
A bit quick on the draw reverting with no explanation when an IP edits. 97.104.138.227 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I do believe, however, that that has already been covered at WP:ANI.  Joel.Miles925  23:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Woodstop45 &bull;  Talk   (Contribs) 18:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent use of vandalism1 template
Hi,

I saw the recent WP:AN/I discussion you opened on an IP user's edits, which an administrator closed with "talk more, template less" yesterday morning. I'm glad to see you not using harsh templates where they are unwarranted since then, but I'm confused by some of your other actions, as some of them make no sense to me at all (although others are fine and helpful):


 * Templating User_talk:152.26.30.93 for an edit to History of South Carolina made by a completely different IP user,
 * User talk:72.224.81.243, for an edit to List of counties in Maine which never happened, and
 * User_talk:24.253.16.132, for an edit to 13 colonies which never happened. 13 colonies is a redirect to Thirteen Colonies which has been vandalised, but by a completely different IP user.

If some of these have good explanations or are caused by features of the rollback tool I am unfamiliar with, please tell me. Otherwise, I'm concerned about this apparent carelessness in using templates on the wrong people. Could you assure me of how you will prevent this in the future?

Thank you, Baslsk talk~track 20:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Baslsk - I think 2 of those are definitely my fault. At one point while editing yesterday I had 2 tabs open to template two users and I suspect I had those to IPs switched. As for the edit on 13 colonies, I don't know. What I do know is that 13 colonies was the title listed in the abuse filter. I suppose it's possible that was just me goofing up, but I'm not sure. It plausibly could have been rollback. Stranger things have happened. But you are right, I do need to be more careful.  Joel.Miles925  22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Joel. Unfortunately incorrect templating is still going on. The following were all in the past hour. The thing is, none of these users ever edited these pages, and none of these pages have been recently edited by any IPs either.
 * User talk:82.47.106.23 for an edit to Lascaux,
 * User talk:47.16.110.147 for an edit to Volt,
 * User talk:192.91.235.243 for an edit to Deity, and
 * User talk:72.235.23.85 for an edit to Zane (and this one was a much more serious ).

You have some good templates in there too, like User talk:Kidwebs for edits to Liberland, but nothing has really changed and it is still a problem. Could you perhaps make sure you only have tabs open for one user at a time (if you use tabbed browsing -- but I don't know how anyone would live without it), or always check a user's contributions using the sidebar link before pressing "save" on their talk page, or cease using rollback for a little while to see if that helps anything?

I'm very new as an editor and I'm still learning all the avenues for discussions and reports on Wikipedia. I don't know what the next step is if we can't sort this problem in a few days; I trust you will know where to go or who to ask for help. ~Baslsk~talk~ 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Baslsk - I've figured it out. When an edit trips certain filters (obscenities, ASCII art, bad words, and harambe vandalism), the abuselog does not allow a editor to view the edit (otherwise known as revdeling). Those edits did happen. Please view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=192.91.235.243&wpSearchTitle=&wpSearchFilter= for the proof. This shows the edits did happen, and if you search for the other edits, they will appear too.  Joel.Miles925  20:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it. (And I'm rather glad the normal list of recent changes doesn't get clogged with those edits.) Thank you very much! ~Baslsk~talk~ 21:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

3rd opinion?
Hi there. I see that you removed a dispute from WP:3O here, but it doesn't appear that you weighed in on said dispute? Thanks for clearing this up for me! DonIago (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was actually reading through the dispute when you left that message!  Joel.Miles925  16:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry if I jumped the gun! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line  to your. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo
Hello, Joel.Miles925. You might have to ask Drmies to provide a summary of the dispute at Justin Raimondo, as I am not sure he is watching the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by a checkiser?
Why am I blocked? All I did was ask to block a bullsfan103 sock! I'm sorry if i'm missing something, but I don't get it. If this editor was vandalizing from my IP, I can explain.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Good hand / bad hand accounts
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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The is very clear checkuser evidence that you have been operating good hand/bad hand accounts. The autoblock above was not in error.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And an explanation I will provide. I suppose it's time to tell you. I am a minor, and I attend a local middle school. Some people at my school know about my editing. At the time I was blocked, I was on a schoolbus. It would appear one person who showed what I thought was a legitimate interest in improving the encyclopedia made the edit to 's talk page. It would appear he has decided to wikihound me. I will speak to this person and tell them to stop. They probably controlled MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! as well (I did not) and look to have noted my reporting of Bullsfan103 at WP:SPI and decided to impersonate him. I know it sounds farfetched, but multiple admins and users can vouch for me. Look at my contribs. I've never vandalized in my life and I neverintend to. This is my passion, and so I would like to appeal this block not in bad faith, but as someone who wants to improve Wikipedia. I'm sorry I ever taught this other person to edit.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits were made back to back from the same IP and exact device as you. I have asked other checkusers to review the results to see if they can reconcile the data with your explanation.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to ping:  Joel.Miles925  (talk)  20:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur with 's analysis of the CheckUser results. It does indeed appear that you have been editing in a good hand/bad hand manner. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

- assuming all that I said above is true, wouldn't that be what it looks like?  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No (though it's interesting that you think it would). This isn't a single occurrence; you have vandalism interspersed with your edits across multiple IP ranges and devices. While this can happen occasionally leading to false positives, the number of cross over points and your explanation above don't fit with the technical data.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though I didn't control sock accounts, I am still in error. I should never have loaned out my device.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which accounts and crossover points are you referring to? I'm starting to wonder if this "friend" has been doing this for a while and i've just now found out.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, I forgot to ping -  Joel.Miles925  (talk)  21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are going to post an unblock request you are free to do so, however I cannot provide more information than I already have. The evidence is very strong and has already been verified by another checkuser, so I suggest you provide an honest appeal if you will be making one. UTRS is also available if you would like to discuss private information.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I will try both channels, there is more information I can give. Thank you for your help. If I wasn't blocked, I might find myself giving you a barnstar... looks like I might not be doing that anymore :(  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Joel.Miles925  (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC) While I still maintain that I didn't do it, I am willing to go through the standard offer. I just have one question: Will I be able to resume editing on this account, or will I have to create a new one, like a WP:CLEANSTART?  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable if you were to request an unblock from this account and continue to use it, should you resume editing. Mike V • Talk 16:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. I may actually have just found proof that a person in one of classes controlled MWAHAHAHAHA, so i'll probably email the WMF about that proof. Thank you.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Question to VRT
- As you can see above, I was blocked for alleged sockpuppetry, and would like to ask a question to the VRT about my final appeal before I leave for 6 months as part of the standard offer. I was wondering if you have gotten an email from the assistant principal at my school about the proof that I was not the sockpuppeteer here. If you have, can you please tell me what the outcome is and if need be tell me who I should contact? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, changing the name of who you pinged won't work. A ping only works once at the time you sign and save your message, so if you then want to ping someone else you need to do a new one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why that wasn't working. Could probably be slapped with a trout. Thank you! Now !  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think we have ever even conversed before. Also, I am not an admin so I am not sure why you would be pinging me. I also have not received any email, unless you are talking about OTRS. If that is that case, I haven't looked at the queues in a couple of days. Even if I had, OTRS doesn't deal with blocks. We have no additional powers over anyone else. Perhaps you were trying to ping someone else? --Majora (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. I was under the impression that you are an admin at VRT. Very sorry to bother you.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I should ping someone who is actually an admin this time:  Joel.Miles925  (talk)  16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

While I am an admin at OTRS (and have been for several days now :) my answer is largely the same as that of Majora. I'm aware that many people write to OTRS in a way that suggest they think that OTRS agents have some special authority over other editors. In fact, it would be better to think of OTRS as the help page for readers who do not know where to ask a question within Wikipedia. While we sometimes directly answer questions if they are easy to answer, we often point them to the right venue within Wikipedia. Most of the people that contact us are readers who have never edited Wikipedia, and occasionally very new editors who have worked on a single article, but have no idea how the overall community works. OTRS is not any sort of location for a "final appeal". In addition, I have almost no involvement with sock puppetry so if I had received an email from anyone at OTRS about sock puppetry I would be looking to pass that person back to editors familiar with that process. (As an aside I see that you have recently been using the UTRS process, is it possible you have confused UTRS with OTRS? I have absolutely no involvement with UTRS.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I was unsure where to send an email and assumed VRT would be the best place to send ithe. Where would be the best place to send something regarding sockpuppetry? I'm trying to prove I'm not the one who controlled a few sock accounts, but I apparently am a bit confused.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that you don't want to post publicly, WP:UTRS is the way to appeal your block - you have already tried once, but if you have found new evidence you can try again. If, for some reason, you are not satisfied with that, the blocking admin (who can do checkuser things and should be able to evaluate your evidence) might be prepared to accept an appeal by email (Ponyo has been pinged, so hopefully will respond here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what you're trying to do, and it's not going to work. So, either drop it or I'll revoke your Talk page access. You are wasting everyone's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't mean to waste your time. Signing off for the final time in 6 months, hopefully be back to make a standard offer request then.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2010 DRIVE4COPD 300


Hello, Joel.Miles925. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "2010 DRIVE4COPD 300".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Standard Offer Attempt
 Joel.Miles925  (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

asking for feedback
???--Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any obvious technical signs of socking so I suppose this should go the community/WP:AN as a WP:SO request?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not crazy about it, I'll defer to .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of luck with those, so I will defer.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN/SO appeal
I guess the way to proceed is for you to post your appeal here and we will take it to WP:AN. I'll give you time to compose a new one, or I can copy what's in the current request for unblock.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with what I originally posted. I think it covers everything listed on the procedure page for this. Thanks for the help.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Sorry it has to be so tedious.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the ping, when will the SO request be up?  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hells bells. I'll do it. -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but isn't there supposed to be a thread for this sort of thing ? Again, sorry for pings.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are OK. I proposed AN. We discussed and we each kinda did not commit. It's up to you know. It was a sock block, but there were no sock issues recently. It's been more than a year. By asking this question, I think you affirmed your readiness. You were a constructive editor; I've no doubt you will be still.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * and I agreed it could go to AN per SO, not that you could just unblock on your own.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for thr unblock. I'm glad to be back.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well damn!. . Please place your appeal at WP:AN before editing further. Brain slipped.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with the unblock. I only mentioned AN as I usually see such requests pop up there. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Joel, just to make it clear because of the confusion, you don't have to post anything at AN. I undid your edit there. You are unblocked, and you can edit normally.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, understood. Again, thanks.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)