User talk:Lavalizard101/Archive 2

Unban request

As requested, I have copied your request over to WP:AN. See WP:AN#Unban request from Lavalizard101. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla: I'd like to respond to the comment about the Sockpuppet number: I am not Lapitavenator, My account Iceiguana13 was originally thought to be a sock of Lapitavenator's but was correctly identified as not being them but being me instead. The tags weren't corrected until I appealed in January 2019 which caused and will possibly continue to cause confusion. Also the User talk:Tknifton is not littered with warnings I got a few warnings and a couple of comments but most of it is from the antivandalism work and recent changes patrolling that I was doing. Also When I say I was editing productively as TKnifton I meant based purely on the edits themselves I agree that behaviourly I was disruptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Copied across. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

(copy this for others to see) @Vaticidalprophet and Ponyo: re: LTA and admits to some of the socking (made respectively). I am not an LTA and I have admitted to all of the socking that I did. Again I am not Lapitavenator the SPI found me (rightfully) unrelated to them as can be seen in its archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I used the term "then-LTA" neutrally to refer to the fact you had a prior history of vandalism and hoaxing across multiple accounts. You are to the best of my ability to tell not currently an LTA, and there is history of once-LTAs reforming. Vaticidalprophet 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I understand that (I thought you were on about WP:LTA. I also agree to refrain from RCP as I agree I was overzealous (especially when I first started). Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Closing unban request discussion

Can an admin please close the unban request discussion. I believe that enough time has passed to determine whether or not there is a consensus. I will of course let the admin analyse the discussion to see what that consensus is. Lavalizard101 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lavalizard101! I have gone ahead and closed the request. I would've done this last night, but was awaiting explicit/"black & white" approval as this was a special block. Please let us know if you have any questions. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the sockpuppetry template from your userpage, leaving it blank. Please feel free to restore your old userpage (prior to the spi template) if you want. Please read the close (linked above). I have logged the account restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lavalizard. I hope you show this to be the right decision, and I'm looking forward to hopefully seeing your productive edits. Vaticidalprophet 02:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saira Banu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aarambh. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Paulo Bernardo

He's playing with the first-team. SLBedit (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please help

They are crazy to use my talk page as the battlefield! --HypVol (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hypvol: I've just reported to WP:AIV lets see what happens. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@HypVol:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Knight (surname)

added links pointing to David Knight, Donald Knight, Peter Knight, Steve Knight and Joseph Knight

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Metal Foam CMF removal

Hi. You removed the entire section on CMF, stating that Urweb and other references are not verifiable. I did not add the bad references so I did not want to remove them myself. My question to you is why not simply remove these references yourself instead of removing the entire section? Surly the peer-reviewed studies that add credibility to all other claims should be enough to verify everything else, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse.Heidrich (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Landes

Hey, you need to seriously drop this, unless you want to take it to some forum or, gasp, the talk page. The first excuse was "undue"--well, it was one single sentence. The second was "editor has a conflict of interest"--but I blocked that editor yesterday already. The third is "he's not notable", where you're simply betraying ignorance of what it means to published something in an academic, peer-reviewed journal--or two, in this case. Islamic Studies has been published for almost sixty years, is indexed by JSTOR, and has a formidable board, and Arab Studies Quarterly--well, why don't you ask Edward Said. Seriously, I'm getting tired of this. You're obstructing with lousy arguments: I'm trying to improve this terrible article, and you seem to have some bone to pick--I can't even guess what bone. So please stop, because I will be happy to cite you for edit warring, and for removal of sourced content (i.e., vandalism). Or you could actually try to improve the article and find some more secondary sources, which--in case you didn't know that--is the best medicine against a perceived imbalance. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Publishing in a journal does not make a scholar automatically notable, all of the ppl who taught me at uni had published in journals, only one of them was notable as a palaeontologist though. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Note

Hey. Just in case you didn't notice, I revdel'd that link and revoked TPA+email. Regards, El_C 16:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know what he was even trying to do either, (if his aim was to scare me or something it failed, I'm more angry than anything). Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Torynobelodon

That was weird. I added the {{Short description}} but didn't touch the categories. The history must have got in a mess somehow. BTW you don't need {{italic title}} if the {{Automatic taxobox}} is formed correctly. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I forgot to remove that when adding the automatic taxobox. The category bit was possibly an edit conflict that wasn't recognised by the software as I did that in the edit after adding the automatic taxobox. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Archaeologists

You have removed a number of archaeologists from the list of archaeologists because they do not have Wikipedia articles. If you would look back at the history of discussions, you would realize that we have been accepting archaeologists who have good external citations. Please revert your changes -- or at least start a discussion. Kdammers (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

CIR-user

Thanks for doing the best that could be done with Hoseinkandovan (talk · contribs) at their talkpage. Based on their subsequent edits, I did indeed extend the block to indef and turned off talkpage access. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no idea why he thought it would work in his favour. Also thanks to him socking we may have discovered a UPE sockfarm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoseinkandovan. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How kind of them. Or something like that... DMacks (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tony Dalton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Trainrobber66

Do not edit other editors' userpages for any reason, and don't revert me again when I undo your edit. You are not the monitor of truth and justice at Wikipedia, and you've been around long enough to know better. In this particular instance, the editor is blocked and has no talk page access. The lie on their userpage, as lies go, is not a big deal and, if anything, is reflective of the editor. I'm restoring the userpage as it was.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages editors are allowed to edit others user pages, within reason. I thought that my edit fell into these exceptions (albeit borderline). Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not, and your behavior is disruptive. I am not going to edit-war over this, and I am not going to report you, either. It's not worth it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Opening SPI cases

Hi. Regarding Special:Diff/1054055804, it looks like you hand-crafted this SPI report. The best way to open an SPI is to use Twinkle, because it automates all the fiddly bits and ensures that the markup syntax is correct. Various scripts parse the SPI files, and can fail if the formatting isn't correct. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:FireMatePeterG

Hi, thanks for your useful feedback. I've modified the page removing the opinions.

FireMatePeterG (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Added a reference, removed the google maps link. Is this all ok?

FireMatePeterG (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion : Indian Institute Of Fashion & Design

Greetings!

Dear Lavalizard101,

I am an authorized person from Indian Institute Of Fashion and Design and would assure you that our Wikipedia page is only for information purposes and specifies the details of the college for the help of students rather than the public on large with all proper citations and references as available on the internet. We do not wish to promote ourselves in any way through Wikipedia and surely welcome your suggestions in rewriting the article in a more relevant way to ensure the benefit of the readers.

We kindly request you to provide us details on the deletion of the page and we assure to rectify the possible reasons which may have resulted in the violation of Wikipedia articles. Kindly reinstate our page and support us in building an article that could be useful to readers and a strong Wikipedia Community.

Regards Paramiifd (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paramiifd:, several things, you class as a paid editor thus need to follow the necessary guidelines as well as WP:COI, Wikipedia articles (not pages there is a difference) are written by editors independent of the subject (in this case someone who has no connection to your institute), who summarise what independent reliable sources say about a subject, your article was written from the companies perspective and was not neutrally written (in places you kept on using we), wikipedia articles don't do that. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

ARC Riders

Hi, I noticed your prod notice on ARC Riders. I agree that the book isn't notable; I can't find a single review of it. But it is a plausible search term. How about if we just redirect the title to David_Drake_bibliography#ARC_Riders? Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from Merseyside, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brookside.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Shon Weissman - Edit warring is prohibited

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sheanus (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Shon Weissman (2nd warning)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McRoyalAlGehaim (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sheanus (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert citation needed tags on Umar Al-Qadri

You appear to have removed the tags on the Umar Al-Qadri article - the content was removed due to having no citations, it was restored by an editor and they were added to give them a fair chance to provide citations. If not, the material needs to be removed again. Please don't revert without leaving a proper papertrail. RogerCasementStan (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Apology

Hello, I'm Magnatyrannus, and I've came back here to apologize to you about the way I have been acting to you and to others in the past. What I did back then was wrong and I never truly meant those personal attacks. Thanks in regards, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Tuamie

Hello Lavalizard101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Tuamie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. Thank you. Jack Frost (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

LDAP Products by Directory Wizards

I'll admit I've never made this request before but I found that you were the last editor on "List of LDAP software" I was wondering if we could get our products added to this list. They are all commercial and work on both Linux & Windows: Directify (www.dirwiz.com/directify) User self service update their own directory information UnitySync (www.dirwiz.com/unitysync) Directory Synchronization Mimic (www.dirwiz.com/mimic) LDAP directory replication Many thanks! Dirwiz (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A couple of things: 1) it could be seen as a non-overt attempt at promotion for me to add it on your behalf. 2) your username violates the username policy as it matches the name of the company. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

G11 / U5

Hi Lavalizard101 -- Sorry for the mixup, but you can assume I've considered G11 as well when I decline U5. I usually add G11 to the rationale when I make U5 deletions. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

G11s

Hi. I'm concerned about a number of G11 tags you've placed on articles that have been around for a number of years. Remember that a CSD is only valid if every single revision meets the criteria on its own merits. For example, in the case of Mario Telò, there have been several attempts in the article history to clean out puffery and unverified information, not least this. So if other editors in good standing have made prior attempts to clean the article up, then deletion is probably controversial and can't be done via a speedy (which, by definition, is for stuff that nobody could reasonably object to). I hope that all makes sense, and if you have any other questions, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Epicmems isn't promotional

It's actually a borderline attack page. That's why I didn't use the promotional username block, and used the generic username violation block instead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Rohit Jangid

Hello Lavalizard101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Rohit Jangid, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G5: substantive contributions from non-socks. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Most of the contributions are from socks though: DigitalmishraG, ‎Thailandhindi, Wushusports, Columnistvivek, Wushuguru and IActiveabhi are all socks of Pcmishradigital, the rest of the edits from non-socks are reverting said socks and minor edits. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There were at least a few edits where Curb Safe Charmer tried to clean up the promotional aspects of the draft, which makes it ineligible for G5. You really have to dig to find it, though, what a mess. I'll see what else I can do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate you fixing my mistake. WCM_email 17:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Felix Neff

Hello Lavalizard101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Felix Neff, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having an entry in Encyclopædia Britannica suggests possible notability. I would take this to WP:AFD. Thank you. BangJan1999 13:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

University of Chicago Graduate Library School

The University of Chicago Graduate Library School was closed in 1989. It was the first doctoral program in U.S. librarianship. Even though some of the individuals you deleted do not yet have Wikipedia pages they were (most are dead) key figures in the development of librarianship. If they were included but don't yet have their own pages, there is a reference to their work in each case. Thank you for understanding.Kmccook (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Psst Dadvan Yousuf

The suspected sock self reverted. You reinstate their edit. Knitsey (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No, there was no self reversion. The sock didn't self revert. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Adakiko reverted them then they reverted Adakiko then I reverted again. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting confused lol. The pope picture is back, which they inserted (there may be a problem with that as well). Sorry for my error. Knitsey (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

They added that in a separate edit to the reverts. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, they added the photo separately. I'll keep my nose out! Knitsey (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of The European Fine Art Fair

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from The European Fine Art Fair, which you proposed for deletion. While the article has problems, the subject is clearly notable. As they say, "deletion ≠ cleanup".. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

I appreciate your caring about our articles!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Gorkhali takma band/sandbox

Hello Lavalizard101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Gorkhali takma band/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

I think I mucked up the ping on Talk:Dadvan Yousuf so just pinging you here too. For the avoidance of doubt I only came across this article today after the post on the Teahouse- I am absolutely not a sockpuppet! Qcne (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I know you're not a sockpuppet. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

<3 Qcne (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

CSD

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm applying the correct criteria. Can you advise? Ref Doubtrix (talk · contribs) I used U5 as it's a user page. Was thus incorrect? This is in no way a challenge, I just want to ensure I don't make more work for others or cause some level of eyerolling. Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Knitsey: Both U5 and G11 fit that userpage. So you weren't incorrect for using U5. G11 can be used for users attempting to promote companies on their userpage when the user is named after said company. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you for that advice. Knitsey (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you do come across any CSD's that I've classified incorrectly, just let me know so that I don't keep making the same mistake. Knitsey (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! I just wanted to let you know - it may not feel that way to you since I've been on the other side of several deletion discussions, but I appreciate your efforts to make the encyclopedia better. In the articles we've disagreed at AfD, in every case you've identified an article that needed work, so you're on the right track, just need to fine tune the difference between a bad article and an article in need of deletion, which is really more about notability than quality. Thanks for all you do, and keep up the good work! — Jacona (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

SIATT

Hi! I saw that you tagged SIATT for speedy deletion under WP:A7. That was absolutely warranted at the time you tagged it, but it did cause an edit conflict with my rework of the article. I've included some sourced claims that I would consider credible claims of significance, but I don't want to outright remove the CSD tag myself. Do you think it still applies? Thanks :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 12:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll withdraw my CSD tag as it no longer applies. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

Clearly notable, plenty of book sources (did you even check?). I suggest you withdraw your nomination. Skyerise (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Hi Lavalizard101! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Category:Apatosaurinae several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Category talk:Apatosaurinae, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Alicia Tate-Nadeau

Hi, you were too hasty in this revert of content removed by a COI account at this article. Although that account has already rightly been blocked for a username violation, didn't leave an edit summary, etc. — usual common mistakes by new editors — their edit should have been allowed to stand as an uncontroversial edit: It removed blatant falsehoods introduced by a previous IP editor who at best completely misread their cited source (if we generously assume good faith on their part). If you check the referenced news article, you'd see that the people that were forced out were: the chief of operations, the deputy director, and a legislative liaison, and not the director herself: Documents signed by Tate-Nadeau show [people] are barred from working for IEMA again. and not Tate-Nadeau was forced out [and] barred from working for the IEMA ever again. Please be more careful to check before reverting in future and not pass judgement in haste simply because you see a COI username.

Cheers, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:A3EF:7617:2021:2DE7 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: The Havalinas

Hello Lavalizard101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Havalinas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, and does give credible significance claim. Thank you. BangJan1999 20:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

How you say that the PCWHS article is unsourced?

Images are provided in that section but why you reverted it? JustinLRT (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Images are not reliable sources. Plus building layouts are unencyclopedic and do not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like building layouts, staff lists, class schedules and rules sections, etc.Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry because I saw that sections like Buildings as my first edit on that page. So many teachers tell me to improve the page to remove the outdated elements and change the new one. It just based on the edit history (it's been a decade long).

According to the edit history that a long time ago (that time is someone was editing), they put the template This Philippines school-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. and it being improved. But in 2022 as my first edit on that page, many suggestions I've received that it should be updated and added and so on. JustinLRT (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of places in Colorado: A–F for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of places in Colorado: A–F is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Colorado: A–F until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

 Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jallah Jeem. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I mentioned at the editwar noticeboard the user (Paki STJj) was being reverted by 6 others over the course of a week, (materialscientist reverted 5 times in a 24 hr period), this pushed the users reverting into WP:DE and WP:TE territory, reverting WP:DE and WP:TE shouldn't be considered a blockable offence. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In pretty much every edit war, each user thinks the other is being disruptive. That is not an acceptable justification for edit warring. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I blocked the other editor per a report at ANEW and saw that you have made 7 reverts within the past 24 hours, doing well past 3RR. At ANI you claimed an exemption to 3RR as the user is being clearly disruptive but please note that there is no such exception under WP:3RRNO. There are very specific instances where 3RR does not apply, and claiming that the other editor is being disruptive is not one. - Aoidh (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, saw you got blocked, glad it's only for a day. The important takeaway from the policy on edit warring is "reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." I'm sure you considered the other editor's edits to fall in the realm of vandalism rather than a difference in POV. Just when in doubt, don't go past that WP:3RR, unless you're 100% sure it's vandalism. If it's a dispute, there are other ways of resolving it than edit warring. Be careful out there, we need your help in editing this project! Jacona (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wirral Grammar School

Your recent edit to Wirral Grammar School for Boys made very little, if no sense. Please explain your reason for reverting my constructive contribution and edits to the article in a major attempt to tidy the article, update information and provide reliable sources. Your reason is not a strong enough argument for the vast removal you undertook, ranging from image in the infobox, to sourced information. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like building layouts, staff lists, class schedules and rules sections, school uniforms etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this your point of view, or set out in clear Wikipedia guidelines regarding school articles? To my knowledge, none exist, and instead you are beginning to engage in an edit war to continue to revert back to your preferred content. Unless you can provide any evidence to support your claims in this matter, the argument does not stand. Indeed, by all means, you may wish to take this to the article talk page in question and get a consensus there. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What's more, your persistent reverting of content added to improve the articles in questions by providing updated information with reliable sources to back these up, you are at risk of disruptive editing, and I would encourage you to be aware of this. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT, WP:RS, Wikipedia:What is an article? WP:Notability, among others. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable organization. Wikipedia wants to know what others wholly unconnected with a subject say about it, not what it says about itself. While not wholly relevant, this templated message often used by admind on promo accounts, shpuld be helpful. Lavalizard101 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I just wished to advise you that I have no issue with your recent reverts on both pages, given you have actually taken the time to remove the content you disagree with, instead of removing the entire edit (including photograph in infobox, sourced information regarding pupil roll to name a few). Clearly, guidelines are in place relating to content included on school related articles, and I was not aware of those guidelines and for that I do accept responsibility and wrongdoing. I am, however, glad to see you have taken the time to remove just those sections and not the entire edit, many elements of which enhanced and contributed to the article. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Ermysted's Grammar School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Onorem (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ermysted's Grammar School. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

{{unblock request|I admit that I am at fault here, upon being reverted a second time I should have disengaged with reverting and focused on discussion. However, I did start attempting to discuss, after the user came to my talk page, but the other user appeared to have ignored said attempt (and still appears to be on their talk page) when making their last revert before being blocked and appeared to take the reversion more personally. In fact the block was made after I had stopped reverting and was made while I was in edit mode in this talk page responding to the other user. I also feel like this block is slightly against policy as blocks should only be used to stop disruption, blocking both parties comes across as punishment. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101#top|talk]]) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC) }}

On the article Ermysted's Grammar School you performed 4 reverts within 24 hours and were blocked per the bright-line rule WP:3RR. You gave no indication that you intended to cease edit warring and you were blocked to prevent further disruption, not as punishment of any kind. Neither of you were discussing on the article's talk page (which is where such discussion should ideally take place so that others can take part in the discussion) and discussion does not permit ongoing edit warring. Further, page protection would not have prevented ongoing disruption as you both were also edit warring at Wirral Grammar School for Boys. It is common that when two editors are edit warring to a point that they have violated 3RR they are both blocked (example) so that alone is not indicative of a policy issue; if you're suggesting that your block somehow violated Wikipedia policy you will need to be more specific, as you violated 3RR on Ermysted's Grammar School and a preventative block was made to prevent further edit warring on that and the other article. - Aoidh (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But exactly how was disruption prevented by blocking me as well as Goodreg3. How would I cause disruption while the other guy is blocked? Also if two pages are involved isn't it better to keep discussion at one place, say a user talk page, as I was trying to do above? Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Or….couldn’t you talk it out instead of fighting it out? (again). Just consider the possibility of being nice instead of combative. Please? — Jacona (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance, which part of the edit warring policy are you suggesting supports the idea that you should not be blocked for breaking 3RR? I suggest you read Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals and WP:3RR, particularly the text in the red box on that page. As for how disruption is being prevented by this block, it seems self-evident by taking a look at the lack of ongoing edit warring on those articles. Given that you violated 3RR before the other editor on that article and had just been blocked for edit warring last month, are you suggesting that you should have been the only editor blocked? - Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I was in the process of discussing when the block occurred, I had stopped reverting (as can clearly be seen from the fact that when Goodreg reverted me at 00:53, I did not revert back) and was instead editing my talk page when the block occurred. Also why a sitewide block rather than mainspace or page block? If the disruption was only on two articles a p-block from both articles would have worked. Also context is key, that last block was against a disruptive editor reverted by multiple editors, who I had reported for socking and has since continued socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You were blocked 13 minutes after making this edit, which given the timeline of the edit warring does not "clearly" show that you had stopped edit warring at all; your last two edits prior to the block were both reverts. You may have intended to cease edit warring after making that fourth revert, but the fact remains that you violated 3RR and were blocked for violating 3RR. As for your unblock request, I suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM, as the other editor did not force you to make that many reverts in that timeframe. - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

When you consider the fact that my prior reverts kept happening minutes later they do. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

They do to you I'm sure. The time between their edit and your last revert was 12 minutes, which given when you were blocked does not show any indication that you had or intended to cease edit warring, let alone a clear indication. However, the timeframe between reverts being 3 or 30 minutes is ultimately irrelevant; you violated WP:3RR and were blocked for it. - Aoidh (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

OK so the block has expired but the IP autoblock hasn't??? I just tried to edit now the block has expired and it came up with " This IP address has been automatically blocked on Wikipedia. The IP address or range 92.28.166.28 has been automatically blocked (disabled) by ‪Aoidh‬ for the following reason(s):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lavalizard101". The reason given for Lavalizard101's block is: "Edit warring"." while I am logged in. It says it'll expire in a few hrs so is only a slight annoyance. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if this occurred bc I clicked view source to copy some code over to draft an edit off-wiki. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1911 in paleontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gnathifera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Maastrichtian species extinctions

A tag has been placed on Category:Maastrichtian species extinctions indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Valanginian species first appearances

A tag has been placed on Category:Valanginian species first appearances indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cretaceous Poland

A tag has been placed on Category:Cretaceous Poland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Lavalizard101, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)