User talk:Runabout5921

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

Welcome![edit]

A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome!

Hello, Runabout5921, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 15:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Runabout5921 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1923 Aeromarine 75 Columbus incident has been accepted[edit]

1923 Aeromarine 75 Columbus incident, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jamiebuba (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts[edit]

Please list the other accounts you are using or have used.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've continued to edit articles without responding to my request. I'd appreciate a response before you continue editing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I need to specify the other accounts? There is nothing in the page on having multiple usernames that says that. Runabout5921 (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, undeclared alternative accounts are rarely acceptable. See WP:ILLEGIT and WP:SOCKLEGIT ("Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project.") Your statement on your userpage ("This isn't my first account, and I still use my older accounts but they are rather disorganized so I will not be linking them here. Also I plan on transitioning over to using this account more than those others but I will still keep the others around.") is troublesome. Not declaring alternative accounts because they are "rather disorganized", whatever that means, strikes me as a poor reason for non-disclosure. Finally, your disclosure and explanation might avoid my filing a report at WP:SPI, if it satisfies me that you are not violating policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 I will stop using the other accounts then, thank you for letting me know. Runabout5921 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not good enough. Perhaps it's best for me to file at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 I am not violating policy nor am I trying to sockpuppet in any way. The other accounts are just old ones that I am going to phase out of in favor of this one. Runabout5921 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Ted Shackelford per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ted Shackelford. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Girth Summit (blether) 10:32, 5 October 2023 (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).

Runabout5921 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will identify the other accounts if this is desired.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2023 (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.

You are not permitted to edit (or remove) declined unblock requests for your currently active block. You are free to make a new request if you wish. You may wish to review WP:GAB before doing so. --Yamla (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Runabout5921 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not using any accounts in an abusive way, will name them if this is desired, and understand why there is currently a block against me (I was apparently confused about the multiple accounts thing).

Accept reason:

Unblock accepted per the conditions below. Spicy (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple undeclared accounts to edit the same articles is considered abusive, because it makes it more difficult for others to scrutinize your edits. That said, I don't think that you are editing in bad faith, and I'm willing to unblock you provided that:

  • You list every account that you have used on Wikipedia.
  • You agree to a one-account restriction. Any further use of multiple accounts will result in a reinstatement of the block.

Let me know if you are willing to comply with these conditions. Spicy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy - CU indicates that they haven't attempted to evade the block since it was imposed; feel free to lift it without further input from me if you're satisfied by their response to your comments. Girth Summit (blether) 14:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the other accounts are ViewingHabit and Ted Shackelford. Would you like me to post them on my user page?
I think that would be a good idea, yes. I will unblock your account in a moment - thanks for your cooperation. Spicy (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Runabout5921 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing issue[edit]

I am trying to edit my sandbox again but it is blocking me even though I was unblocked, why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runabout5921 (talk • contribs)

Girth Summit, I assume this is because autoblock is enabled on the other accounts. Would you be able to change the block settings? (I'd just do it myself, but it's a CU block...) Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Runabout5921 simply stops using the other accounts, the autoblock will clear within 24 hours. --Yamla (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 3 days and it is still blocking me, so I think this isn't going to automatically fix itself. Runabout5921 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been less than one day since you were using another account. --Yamla (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The block was lifted on the 7th and it is now the 10th, how is that "less than one day"? Runabout5921 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have  Confirmed that you last used one of the other accounts within the past day. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? If they were being used on Wikipedia I am not aware of it. I only use the Ted account to upload files to Wikimedia Commons. Runabout5921 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Shackelford was active (that is, logged in; I'm not implying that account made any edits) less than 24 hours ago. --Yamla (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was an automatic login done by my computer. I switched back when I noticed it was displaying the wrong name. Runabout5921 (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap. --Yamla (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's working again, thank you! Runabout5921 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My computer keeps logging in the other account even though I deleted it from my saved passwords. Will the block status be changed to prevent this? Runabout5921 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Yamla (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla I am not trying to use the old account, it's just saved on my computer in a way that it automatically logs in sometimes without me doing anything. Runabout5921 (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest you fix that. We won't be changing the block on this side. --Yamla (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just wondering. Runabout5921 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osteoarthritis image[edit]

On my talk page, you said: I noticed you reverted my edit on osteoarthritis because of WP:NOTGALLERY and said it was "unconstructive". I respect your decision and do not want to start an editing war but why did you consider the image I inserted to be unconstructive? Just wondering.

The image is a 120+ year old drawing of a rare case of extreme arthritis. The image is neither informative for any purpose in the article nor is it a pleasant image to view. It impressed me as an image just dropped unconstructively into the article, and was unnecessary to educate the general reader - NOTGALLERY refers to adding images not necessary for the educational content of the article. Zefr (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now. Thank you for letting me know why it was removed. Runabout5921 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding some articles[edit]

Dear Runabout5921, I see your now-disclosed account ViewingHabit made a few articles related to head/face/skull shape, including sloping forehead, list of conditions with craniosynostosis and craniorhiny. And some drafts including Draft:High forehead and Draft:Midface retrusion. These all seem like dictionary definitions and the grouping appears arbitrary for me, as I was not able to find sources confirming your inclusion criteria in line with WP:NLIST. Per the policy, one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems like the relevant notability criteria for articles but I don't think they meet the criteria. They are also bordering very close to phrenology, which Wikipedia recognises as psuedoscience and there are special policies that apply to fringe theories. I was considering taking these articles to WP:AfD but I thought to ask first if there is a more reasonable explanation for these articles. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, if they are not of relevant nature they can be removed. I don't know how they would border on phrenology but I can see why they might look that way. Thank you for letting me know. Runabout5921 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sloping forehead for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sloping forehead 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/Sloping forehead 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.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not notable enough for continued inclusion then I will not object to the deletion of it. Runabout5921 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure to comment at the AfD page here as other people viewing the nomination may not visit this talk page and see your messages here. Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for letting me know. Runabout5921 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of people executed in Florida (pre-1972) has been accepted[edit]

List of people executed in Florida (pre-1972), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 09:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Alexandre Michaud de Beauretour
added a link pointing to Chene
Catacombe dei Cappuccini
added a link pointing to Chene

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexandre Michaud de Beauretour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chene.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of aviation accidents and incidents with ground fatalities (April 8)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:
Needs a lead and probably a rename, otherwise literally every bombing run could be included.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Runabout5921! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hi Runabout5921. Thank you for your work on Pierre Jobert. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

When redirecting to lists, it's helpful to create an anchor to an entry and redirect there, instead of redirecting to the main list.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Runabout5921&oldid=1222289943"