User talk:WinnerWolf99/Archive 4

May 2020
Hello, I'm RandomCanadian. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Lego films and TV series, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Lego Space. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

k geez sorry he just won't accept its relevance WinnerWolf99 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. RedPanda25 23:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * Unless someone is hacking my computer without me knowing, that was not me. What account is supposedly me? WinnerWolf99 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (i have an account now so lol)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. —  Newslinger  talk   04:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * Ah, okay, but I assume that if I find said tags on a talk page and/or not on a user page, then I am permitted to add them?(only on confirmed sockpuppets, of course) WinnerWolf99 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Applying sock and globally locked tags to user pages is the standard convention. Adding these templates to user talk pages looks strange because the templates generally aren't used that way. When you added them to user talk pages, your edits triggered abuse filters that alerted me to the edits. Typically, sockpuppetry templates are added by clerks and checkusers only when needed, and you'll most likely not have to worry about them. If you're interested in countering abuse on Wikipedia, please consider reading the policy against vandalism and then helping out with cleaning up vandalism. Signing up for a Wikipedia account would give you access to tools that make this easier. —  Newslinger  talk   03:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but as to the account, it's not that I don't want an account, but rather kind of hard to explain. Hopefully, soon I won't have to worry about it, and I'll make an account then, but for now, just call me 99(unless there's another 99 IPv4, but otherwise)! WinnerWolf99 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Whether to create an account is entirely your choice. Please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk   07:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, could you please explain what motivated you to add all of the sockpuppetry and global lock notices to user talk pages, such as the ones on Special:Diff/985618220? —  Newslinger  talk   21:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at May this year, you will notice that I actually dealed with a sockpuppet, and then I found out about them, and thought that what I did was helpful. I didn't think I'd be blocked for it, or I wouldn't have done it lol WinnerWolf99 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

New message from Newslinger
—  Newslinger  talk   03:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

New message from Newslinger
—  Newslinger  talk   04:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

New message from Newslinger
—  Newslinger  talk   07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Muse (children's magazine). - Arjayay (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean vandalism? I was trying to build an article! —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 02:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Little Club (Gaming)


A tag has been placed on Draft:The Little Club (Gaming), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Jalen Folf  (talk)  01:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. It's incorrect to say that it was deleted without reason, the speedy tag, which you have read said '' because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.  and my deletion notice said G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: not notable''. Also you said you contested the deletion, but you said What makes you guys even think this is promotional? which appears to be a comment rather than an explanation. In any case, tagged articles can be deleted without warning or discussion.

If you have an conflict of interest regarding this topic you must declare it. Also read the following regarding writing an article:
 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Your draft had no references of any kind, not even to their own website. I know you indicated that refs might follow, but you shouldn't really start without anything to to support what you have written or to support notability. I have say it's hard to see, from what you have written why this group should have had any coverage in reputable sources; a quick GOOGLE found nothing beyond the social media/blog level
 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. Even if we accept everything you have written as true, it's not clear why this group is notable. It seems to have no offices, employees, income or expenditure, and a tiny membership. It look as if it's just a loose informal group of games players, of which there are probably hundreds of thousands.


 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. Without any actual facts, your unsourced list of names seems to have no purpose other than to namecheck the group
 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

There is nothing to stop you from trying again, but before attempting to do so, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also note that the title may be incorrect, "gaming" is not a proper noun Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, they have an office building and lots of subscribers(whose lowest and highest subsciber counts I shall check later). —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 03:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Your FfD voting rationales
Hello. Have you considered being more precise and explaining your votes in further details at WP:FFD? That way, other editors and I can understand your voting rationales. Also, you've been quoting other people's votes. Why not say "per " instead? [Oh wait, WP:AAIFD (an essay, actually) discourages "per nom" votes, including quoting and saying exactly "agree" (or similar) and nothing more. But that's just an essay, anyways.] Alternatively, you can ease your amount of votes from now then if you can't come up with a rationale for your vote. How's that? --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rationale?? Haven't I been giving clear enough reasons why??
 * "including quoting and saying agree" "per username" Ok I will change that now. —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 23:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. Struck out one of my concerns. Your rationales are fine for now. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 23:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page
User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. F ASTILY  22:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's my own fricking user page!! I can put what I want on it!! —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 00:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You do not own any page or content on Wikipedia. -  F ASTILY   00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -_-
 * IT'S MY USERPAGE!!! WOULD YOU BE HAPPY IF SOMEONE DELETED PART OF YOUR USERPAGE??? —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 00:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please stop leaving WP:ILIKEIT type votes at Files for discussion (ex: 1, 2). FFD discussions are strongly rooted in policy, and these kinds of comments are disruptive to the project. Thanks,  F ASTILY   01:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also what is the meaning of User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Hate? I strongly suggest you blank the page and familiarize yourself with WP:POLEMIC -  F ASTILY   01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 was because it had been prodded and deleted before.
 * 2 was because of WP:NFCC and I simply said which cover I preferred. —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I moved User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Hate to User:WinnerWolf99/The List of Things I Will Delete If It is Put on My Talk Page. This better?(Will revise the page to be less attacky also.) —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 18:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Less attacky now. —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Then you need to explain this in detail when you opine at FfD. Deletion discussions are not a vote, they are a consensus building exercise, wherein the weight and strength of arguments are considered at closing time, and not the number of people who "voted" keep or delete.
 * No, it isn't. This is still unnecessarily antagonistic; your personal opinions on LGBT should not be involved with or pertinent to your contributions on Wikipedia.  I think you need to either blank or remove this content entirely.  -  F ASTILY   20:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was concensus-izing by saying my agreement for 1, and 2 I have no more argument for. You didn't read the new version of the page, did you. —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 21:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. Like I said, deletion discussions are not a vote; if you don't have any arguments or anything meaningful to add, then there's no need for you to comment.
 * Yeah buddy, you'll get real far in life with that snide attitude. -  F ASTILY   22:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you nothing meaningful/any arguments? I have plenty of shown reasons!
 * Snide! SNIDE! You are getting on my nerves... —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 00:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed your editing privileges. I've been more than patient with you, given you ample opportunity to fix an offensive userpage, and you've responded by getting defensive, uncivil, and even creating a copy of the page assuming nobody would notice.  I'm not sure what your end goal is, but I'm relatively convinced it currently isn't to the benefit of Wikipedia.  -  F ASTILY   01:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah buddy, you'll get real far in life with that snide attitude. -  F ASTILY   22:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you nothing meaningful/any arguments? I have plenty of shown reasons!
 * Snide! SNIDE! You are getting on my nerves... —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 00:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed your editing privileges. I've been more than patient with you, given you ample opportunity to fix an offensive userpage, and you've responded by getting defensive, uncivil, and even creating a copy of the page assuming nobody would notice.  I'm not sure what your end goal is, but I'm relatively convinced it currently isn't to the benefit of Wikipedia.  -  F ASTILY   01:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much. I shall proudly '''never edit Wikipedia again, and will tell my friends and family how horrible a place it is to try and be helpful. Once again, THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!' —  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now?'' 01:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, WinnerWolf99,
 * Should you wish to request to be unblocked, you can use   and provide your reason. Another admin will review your appeal. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that this individual is now socking and harassing me cross-wiki. -  F ASTILY   02:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)