User talk:Caker18/Archive 2019/October

Previous account declaration
Caker18, if you will be requesting advance permissions, I strongly suggest that you declare your previous account(s) to Arbcom or to a checkuser via email. You note that "I've been on Wikipedia for over a year on this account, and on my old one, which has since been deleted because I didn't really have much to do on it anymore, over about four years", yet accounts are not deleted. You picked up editing in earnest in May, using mainly VPNs and webhosts to do so. This is very concerning as it gives all the appearances of an attempt at evading scrutiny.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ponyo I've travelled a lot, to China, to places. The account is now deleted. Thanks! I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  22:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ponyo Also, since Wikipedia is blocked in China, these VPNs are necessary. Cheers! I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  23:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Caker18, accounts cannot be deleted. I cannot compel you to disclose your previous account(s), but it does make it difficult for admins to review your requests for advanced permissions if we don't have a full picture of your editing history. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I cannot say for sure what it was because there was a gap between the other account (which to be honest I rarely used, I think I was bluffing) and this one. I forgot the username connected to the old one and my email linked to it was not working properly, which is why I created this one. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  04:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can try my best, but don't expect much. If in the end I can't find it, there is good reason (I believe.) Is there a way I can find old usernames? I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  04:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you truly cannot remember your previous account, there's no program here that can assist you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a email -> username program here that can help? I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  16:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Thank you for making a report about on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. ''The IP made one edit; you gave one warning. Although you stated vandalism occurred after final warning, no vandalism occurred after your edit. In addition, you used "only warning" on a sensitive IP instead of a level 1 warning. Please be more circumspect. '' Killer Chihuahua 16:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but they were warned several times before, and it was clearly not in good faith (usage of language was clearly inappropriate.) I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, first response I left here (now removed) was about a different case. THIS editor is a multi-use IP - so the previous warnings could have reached any one of hundreds of people. "last warning" in that case MUST be for the same editing period. Secondly, they had ONE edit, followed by your warning, followed by NOTHING. Which means, your claim there was vandalism after last warning was inaccurate. Killer Chihuahua 16:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * if it was a multi-use IP, at least it should be soft blocked? i. e. editing blocked but account creation unblocked? I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  17:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the page about Sensitive IPs - note that the The Canadian Department of National Defence is on that list. How exactly does one bad edit in the past year, against hundreds of quality edits, merit having to email the Wikimedia Foundation and explain that yes, we may end up in the news for being heavy handed and causing an incident because one editor at the department made a mildly critical comment - apparently from frustration - on an article? I'm genuinely interested in how you would justify that. Killer Chihuahua 17:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Signature
As this is actually a different issue I didn't want to tack it on to your NPP request because it's not really germane to that, but our policy on signatures asks that you avoid mark-up like and so you might want to consider changing your signature. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Laxmi Prasad S.C.
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Laxmi Prasad S.C.. I do not think that Laxmi Prasad S.C. fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because play in the play in the Goa Professional League (a top-level national league) is a claim of significance. I request that you consider not re-tagging Laxmi Prasad S.C. for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Warning levels
Hi caker18. Help with vandalism is definitely appreciated, but please be a little more judicious with your use of "only warning"-level user templates, especially per WP:BITE. Unless there was something especially terrible about it, there's no need to jump right to that level, even for an IP that has previous, old warnings, since IPs are often dynamic. For example, this edit was normal, run-of-the-mill vandalism and doesn't merit an "only warning". Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation and quote marks - in or out?
Hello, nice to meet you.

I hate to be a drag but could you please have a look at MOS:INOROUT which I think – if I am reading it right – suggests that edits like this are not what we should be doing. I know that some of us have been brought up differently but that's the way Wikipedia has decided to operate. I am certainly NOT planning to charge around reverting you all over the shop, but I do think it might be wise for you to stop and rethink before doing any more. All of that is contingent upon my having got it right and knowing what I am on about, which is by no means always the case, so do please feel free to seek more reliable information and advice elsewhere! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)