User talk:PythonSwarm/Archive

Old archives

GA review of Network synthesis
Thanks very much for reviewing Network synthesis for GA. I'm not sure what you were referring to by a previous edit war. The only thing I could find was I reverted an attempted change to the citation style. Reversions are just part of normal editing. If it doesn't go beyond WP:BRD it's definitely not an edit war. It might be a dispute, but that's not the same as edit warring, and in this case the revert was not even challenged or discussed. Was that it, or were you thinking of something else? SpinningSpark 10:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think of that changing the citation style. -- PythonSwarm  Talk &#124;   Contribs   &#124;   Global 13:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would just like to chime in about the review at Talk:Network synthesis/GA1 as it was brought up at WT:GAN. The review wasn't of the highest quality with the nominator suggesting that another review be carried out. GAN reviews are usually reasonably in-depth. I actually think the article is in pretty good shape with a few issues to be addressed. Might I suggest you talk with Thepenguin9 and come to a solution/expand on the review? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop
I see from your talk page history this has been brought up before, but you need to stop providing unsolicited advice to new users when you, yourself, are new and unfamiliar with our policies. This is not helpful; there is no reason why this editor needs to change their username despite the filter log and a filter log trigger is not going to have any effect on someone becoming an admin, not that an editor with one single edit is even concerned with such things. Please stop trying to do admin-type duties, clerking admin areas, advising new editors on policy, and concentrate on improving content until you have a better grasp on our policies. At some point we admins may grow weary of asking and will enforce such a change. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer) for a period of 3 months for persistent unhelpful comments on RFP pages.. 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:. Cabayi (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just 5 days ago you had a close brush with a partial block because of unhelpful comments on user requests at Requests for permissions/Rollback. I messed up the block, and you retracted your post, so I let it lie as you seemed to get the message. Yet here you are four days later making redundant comments on Ana Catarine's request at Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. If you can't stop yourself, then it'll have to be done for you. Cabayi (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GA nominations and reviews
I strongly suggest that you stop approving Good Articles or nominating further articles. I see that even after acknowledging the discussion at the GA noticeboard, you have passed one with almost no rationale and nominated another which still has clear problems. Good Article reviews are in-depth quality reviews, not quick "it looks good" checks, and it does not look like you are sufficiently familiar with the criteria at this time to be nominating or accepting good articles. If you really want to work in this area, find a mentor who is experienced in GA review and ask them to help you learn the process. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Lack of engagement by you
I do mean what I said at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. I find your conduct in conducting a third (sub standard) review when the first two are being questioned totally unacceptable. Sadly this seems redolent of your engagement with other editors overall, you show very little willingness to interact meaningfully with others and I cannot see much discussion by you about article content. When you do use talk pages, it either seems to be to start RFCs or to issue warnings (inappropriately in some cases) but little else. You have been invited to respond to the discussion at WT:GAN and your response was simply to say you were here. I would have expected someone keen on being involved with Wikipedia who has previous expressed a desire to be an administrator to contribute some replies about how you conducted the two reviews and why you kept the reviews as short as you did.

You have already been blocked from two pages for making inappropriate comments, you have been given strong warnings by both and  about how not to behave yet you seem bent on ignoring those warnings. They might have been about specific topics but the message remains valid for all areas and you cannot go around acting as if the warnings do not apply simply by switching your editing to a different area of Wikipedia.

This is the last time I am going to say please but please take the advice given and stay away from anything that isn't about improving content. If I find you doing any more GA reviews without the WT:GAN discussion being resolved with your involvement then I will seek a WP:topic ban for you in relation to GA assessment. Nthep (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)