User talk:Renamed user awfwvowjvwrvnwio/Archive 3

Bad close of Opang Jamir's AfD
Hi there - your recent closure of this AfD was entirely improper. Could you please explain why you thought it was okay to close this? The edits you made to the article after closing were also very inappropriate. I was part the way through reverting your closure before beat me to it -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 15:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was messaging you anyways when Samtar left his message so I'm going to give my words of advice. Please don't close AfD's you have started; see WP:INVOLVED. Furthermore, non-admins aren't allowed to (or at least not supposed to) close AfD discussions as delete, and WP:SNOW doesn't apply with only two !votes. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And I am going to add on here since my question was sent to archive seconds after I wrote it. - Hi, I am wondering why you have closed Articles for deletion/Opang Jamir as having a consensus after one day? The article likely meets several deletion criteria but AfDs do not work this way. Secondly, you have been asked by many editors to stop messing with/assessing speedy deletions and various other deletions, yet on this same article, Opang Jamir you not only closed the AfD after a single day, but then tagged it for deletion as G4 immediately after your erroneous WP:SNOW close. This is not how G4 works - G4 is for articles that have been recreated AFTER deletion by AfD. I am going to ask you, one editor from another, please stop overstepping into pseudo-admin territory as you seem to be doing. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I started immediately reverting everything related to the AfD and to the article, but JudgeRM done that for me. I'll start watching the AfD and wait for more votes. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was part the way through writing you another message basically saying I believe you don't currently fully understand the AfD process to an extent where you're able to close discussions proficiently. I'm glad to see your above message, and would urge you to take some time away from closing discussions for the time being - the best way to learn at AfD is taking part in the discussions and seeing how other editors close them. If you ever need any help please feel free to drop by my talk page :-) -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 16:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

G3 tagging
Hi, I notice you tagged Great Of India with G3 (vandalism). I agree that it's definitely pretty spammy but I'm not sure I understand the vandalism tag. Am I missing something? Thanks. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was carrying a task to remove non-encyclopedic material from Wikipedia, and that task was clearing the spam backlog. I've put G3 because the article was completely unsourced spam resembling hoaxes I've tagged for speedy deletion. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Telephone numbers in Portugal GA nomination
Luis150902, I have just looked at the article, and regraded it at Start class. It is in no way ready for a GA nomination; the article is just about current telephone numbers, whereas the broadness criterion (see the GA criteria for everything that is required for a Good Article) would require not only the current conditions, but how the system developed, the various changes over the years, etc. The section on mobile numbers is completely unreferenced, which is also a problem.

The amount of prose in the article is extremely small; I can't recall an actual GA with as little. If someone had picked up your nomination for review, they would have immediately failed it; it's that far from ready at the present time. If you want advice on how to get the article to GA status, you might want to try the peer review process. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal and re-addition of speedy deletion tags
Please do not remove speedy-deletion tags, just to re-add them. This wastes time, complicates the task for administrators when reviewing the grounds for deletion and in your case, is further complicated when you add the wrong tags back and have to make further changes. This behaviour is disruptive and unhelpful, please make sure it stops. Nick (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PREEMPTSALT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tagging socks
Hi,. I noticed you have been tagging socks on their userpage like  (among others) should not be tagged as socks of UA Rocks! as they are socks of UnderArmourKid. However, they should not be tagged as UAK either, per the discussion regarding WP:DENY on the SPI. There are many others where this is the case, so please be sure to read the full SPI history or let a clerk do it. Thanks. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the sockpuppet tags which you created (as per the above, under WP:DENY) and I've refused your speedy deletion request for the abomination of a page move at Sockpuppet_investigations/UA_Rocks! because it breaks existing links (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UA_Rocks!. You're making an enormous mess for other people to clean up, so as it stands, if you go near SPI again, other than to file a report, I'm going to block you for disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain
I'm struggling to see how what you've removed here could be seen as vandalism or a personal attack.. could you try to explain that to me? -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 15:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The redactions are already reverted. The disruptive editing note was added because the user disruptively edited its talk page. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I was coming to ask the same thing about the same diff and whilst I'm at it, I want an explanation for tampering with rejected unblock request templates at. I expect answers to these questions and for them to be pretty exceptional. Nick (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll revert my redaction in a moment. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You're moving very rapidly to being blocked for disruptive editing and a lack of the competency required to edit Wikipedia. I did agonise over blocking you this morning for disruptive editing and lack of competency, fortunately for you, I decided against doing so, but my patience is going to run out sooner rather than later now. You need to move away from involving yourself in things you don't seem to understand or comprehend. The list of issues grows everytime I see you editing somewhere I'm afraid, at some point, you become too much of a time sink, and the good work that you perform becomes vastly outweighed by the amount of time wasted (and thus good work which can't be undertaken) by other editors. That point is rapidly approaching. I want to see you, for the next few months, focusing on basic edits to articles, and nothing complex which causes difficulties or diverts editors time away from their own work. Nick (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redacting edits which do not need to be redacted, interfering with other users discussions in the process
 * Redacting parts of an unblock request left by an administrator as part of the unblock rejection
 * Moving SPI pages around without care, being completely unaware of the damage poor moves and attempted redirect deletion causes
 * Very poor closure of AfD discussions as detailed above
 * The blatantly inappropriate LuisBot request, which no amount of questioning on my part seemed to make you understand the issues with your proposals
 * Copyright violations and breaking attribution, as detailed in the section above
 * Poorly coded templates which were poorly thought out and required experts re-writing them to have them work as intended

This is quite unbelievable - no sooner have I left you a list of concerns about your behaviour, and you go and do something completely preposterous. Why did you think it was remotely acceptable to move another user's Draft material into the Article namespace without discussing the content with them first ? Can you imagine the confusion if the content was subsequently deleted, for example, or the difficulties which would arise moving the content back to the Draft namespace. And how the hell do you find all these pages to play with ? It's so completely haphazard, it's becoming more difficult to assume good faith and accept these are good intentioned edits. Nick (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)