User talk:LoganTheWatermelon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niddrie[edit]

Hi Logan,

Can you please stop vandalising the article on Niddrie, Edinburgh ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.106.19 (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing the page, just reverting edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Vandalism[edit]

I’m not doing vandalism, So please list this as false— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was a template I use to welcome new users. I'm going to offer some more links of my own as well.
My talk page is open if you need to reach me. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you rely strongly on automated classification?[edit]

Hi LoganTheWatermelon, I'll come straight to the point.

I suspect that you might be relying blindly, or at least heavily, on the machine classification of edits provided in the "recent changes" feed. Is this correct? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoganTheWatermelon, please reply to this message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use the recent changes page to do the anti vandalism, than undo the edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LoganTheWatermelon: ​ You should really take a pause with the anti-vandalism edits until you have thoroughly reviewed what I wrote to you above. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will you give me a cookie— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will also be giving them warning— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I shall give you a cookie if you read my post above and apply it to your next comment. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, but with a requirement and a warning[edit]

LoganTheWatermelon, thank you very much for the honest clarification.

Please note that the English Wikipedia already has a bot, ClueBot NG, which reverts edits based on machine classification. However, contrary to the list on your screen, ClueBot NG is mathematically configured to only make 1 error in 1000 reverts, on average. The list on your screen is intentionally set to a lower higher average limit of errors. The list would be pointless if it only displayed what the bot already reverts; the list is meant to display cases that require experienced human insight. Very new editors rarely have the required experience to do this with the expected level of accuracy. Your classification ability seems to be above average, and I predict that you will be a fine rollbacker one day, but today is apparently not this day.

Edits such as Special:Diff/927671465 and Special:Diff/927660023, in which you have reverted good-faith edits without providing any reason, are not acceptable. If this becomes a disruptive habit, your account will be blocked from editing.

I started with anti-vandalism here too – click "oldest" on Special:Contributions/ToBeFree and scroll to the bottom of the oldest contributions to see how I began. This, however, was after already having gained editing experience on the German Wikipedia. If you are completely new to editing Wikipedia, chances are that you are doing anti-vandalism too early.

While you are not required to do so, I strongly recommend fulfilling the "200 article edits" criterion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback before making rollback-like actions with the undo button. The following pages can be a good start:

If any questions arise, feel free to ask on my talk page or the Teahouse at any time.

Best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The list has a lower accuracy, thus higher error count. I mixed up the two terms and have corrected the word "lower" above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you so much— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoganTheWatermelon, please do not thank me too early. I expect you to adhere to the advice above, or you may be blocked without further warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi LoganTheWatermelon! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 01:23, Sunday, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Signatures[edit]

This was an awesome comment!! Just so you know though, the way to add your signature is by typing four tildes like so ~~~~ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Remember when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:119.148.6.102, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. If you don't do this, then I generally have to sign your post for you which is very tedious.

Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Stop reverting my edits; they are not vandalism. If you do not explain why you are reverting your edits will be reverted and you will be reported for disruptive editing. 142.134.221.62 (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were deleting information and that can give you a warning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing personal opinions, as stated in the edit summaries. I have the article on Microsoft Word now so I can just copy and paste if needed. 142.134.221.62 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I reverted it because it was on the likely bad Faith on recent changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't bad faith. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral point of view and information that has nothing to do with the subject matter is removed. 142.134.221.62 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Alexf(talk) 19:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, I will not break the 3rr rule anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs)

You have been asked/told multiple times to be more careful about your reverts. Unless you change, you're on your way to an indefinite Competence is Required block. You reverted an IP fixing a typo, removed a category that is practically straight out of the first sentence of the article, undid grammar fixes, and reverted many content changes that were not clearly vandalism. Frankly, I don't know how you haven't been blocked until now. You need to slow down and actually look at, and think about, what you're doing. Right now you're just being disruptive. – Frood (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the edits of today here raise competence issues - at the very least they are careless. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

I will now be giving Users warnings now, I will not break any rules, I promise I won’t do anything stupid now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheWatermelon (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm tempted to substantially extend your block, given this unblock request. This is nowhere close to anything that would lead to an unblock. Please take the time to read and understand WP:3RR, WP:EW, WP:CIR, and WP:GAB. Yamla (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment. Oof, this is the exact situation ToBeFree and I were hoping to avoid for you Logan. As ToBeFree tried to tell you, the recent changes pages can tell you if something is likely in bad faith, but it really is just a piece of software and is no substitute for good judgement. You also have yet to sign your posts as I have repeatedly asked you to do.
I know you want to do the right thing, but I really don't think you have realized why you have been doing something really, really, bad. It isn't stupid to revert someone's good faith contributions, it's mean. The conversation you had above with the IP user is exactly what I trying to illustrate. They tried helping Wikipedia by doing good work, and then you reverted it. When they said to you that you were wrong to do that, you said that it was likely made in bad faith (at least according to the recent changes page). That isn't nice, and you should apologize to that user.
Behind every edit is a person with real and legitimate intentions. A piece of software cannot tell you whether something was done for the right reasons or not. It's your responsibility to do that. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

The investigation was closed; the checkuser result was "Unrelated". See below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LoganTheWatermelon, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Hi LoganTheWatermelon, the investigation has been incorrectly opened and correctly closed now. A technical check has been performed by a CheckUser, and there is no technical evidence to substantiate the suspection. Your account has been marked as "Unrelated" to the person I wrongly believed you to be.

I am sorry for the inconvenience caused by my incorrect suspicion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m up too[edit]

I will now be reporting users who breaks Wikipedia’s rules.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A note on userspace and terminology[edit]

Per this edit; the term "vandalism" doesn't apply to editing one's own user talk pages. However, we do have policies regarding personal attacks, removing declined unblock notices for active blocks, and a few other things; see WP:UOWN. I blocked that user mostly for the article space vandalism, though making repeat personal attacks can also be block worthy if they are repeated after warnings. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Please[edit]

May I please have a barnstar for my anti vandalism.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not barnstar ready yet. You restored an unsourced, unneeded, paragraph for no reason; and you warned a user clearly here in good faith. You can have another cookie if you want, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I’m I auto confirmed yetLoganTheWatermelon (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Draft:Online Money Transfer OMT[edit]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Draft:Online Money Transfer OMT. I do not think that Draft:Online Money Transfer OMT fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because Obviously not patant nonsense. I request that you consider not re-tagging Draft:Online Money Transfer OMT for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Please be careful when placing speedy deletion tags. Only pages that clearly comply with the specific criterion you are using should be tagged. Also, normally one adds the CSD tag to the page, one does not replace the content. Sometimes replacement is done for attack pages and blatant copyright violations that should not be visible even for a brief time. But not otherwise. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was because it was self promotion.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but self promotion and nonsense are two very different things. Please be careful and specific in tagging. And even for promotion, we don't normaly replace the content, we just add the speedy deletion tag. That makes it easier for a reviewing admin. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Social Republic troops in the Invasion of Normandy[edit]

Hello, may I know why my edit on the Invasion of Normandy page was undone? I added the Italian Social Republic as belligerent. The 1ª Divisione Atlantica Fucilieri di Marina of the Italian Social Republic was assigned to the coast of Normandy, few Channel Islands (like Cézembre), and few other locations. This Division counted more than 5000 soldiers. There were also several thousands of Italians inside German divisions, so I don't see why we shouldn't count the Italian Social Republic as belligerent. May I have an explanation or could you please undo your edit if this satisfies you? Regards 87.20.125.36 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 2019[edit]

<Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to BNC connector, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.</ 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted because you tripped a abuse filler.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't understand why that was (possibly the deletion of the unreliable reference?). I shall rephrase my post by withdrawing it. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably a sock of Mu301 as you keep reinserting rubbish and supporting it with an unreliable source that does even have the expansion claimed. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not Mu301, I am from South Carolina.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So? 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BizBiz online b2b wholesale marketplace[edit]

How is it patent nonsense? I think unambiguous advertising covers what's wrong with it. •≈20+π(talk to me!) 19:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required to edit Wikipedia[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn’t doing anything wrong.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly that isn't true. ST47 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Block evasion: Community ban[edit]

Meh.

LoganTheWatermelon, please just stay away from Wikipedia for a year or two. You will probably be welcomed back, as your intentions appear to be genuine, if you stop evading your block.

For repeated confirmed block evasion, you have now been banned by the English Wikipedia community and need to appeal to the whole community when coming back. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected connection and block: RheieWater2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LoganTheWatermelon&oldid=955967994"