User talk:Wikieditor600

Mount Everest belongs to Nepal not China and Nepal

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Wikieditor600! Thank you for your contributions. I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"single-asset transactions are not notable for a company of this size"[edit]

Not sure what this means. Can you point to the relevant policy or guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on a conversation on the UDR, Inc. page. REITS buy and sell properties every month; if we list every small trade made by an investment company, the articles would go on forever and not have the most important information.

I don't see the conversation that took place in either the page history or the talk page so I am still confused. Can you point me to the conversation so I can get a better understanding of the discussion that took place? I would disagree about blanking information based on that type of summary without looking at each one. Some of these are not "small trade[s]" made "every month." Some of these are notable enough that the media felt them worthy to write articles about. I'm not saying they shouldn't be removed if they amount to promotionalism or if the sources are just routine announcements, but please make sure you evaluate each of these individually prior to removal. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is confusing me. What makes these transactions non-notable and the others notable? I see a few I agree with based on the sourcing, but not sure why some were deleted and not others. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the page history section. I added transactions and they were removed as I was told that a single property transaction is not notable

Also, "the media" that is referenced is local real estate blogs, not national papers such as The New York Times; if a company owns 100 properties worth $4 billion, and buys and sells 10 properties per year, we should not include every property transaction in the wikipedia article

I don't see your edits in the page history. What account did you use to do those edits? Also, I am still not sure what makes one transation notable and not another. If you can point to a relevant guideline that would be great. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info in August 2017 and spent a lot of time on it. I don't think there is a specific paragraph that says whether each property buy and sell is notable or not. Either way, let me know. We can list a dozen transactions per year from each REIT, depending on how often such REITs issue releases.

Please make sure you read, but don't "read into" what I wrote. I am not saying I disagree with the results, I am just not sure the reasoning of how you got there is proper. Wikipedia is based on policies and guidelines. Without them, it would be anarchy. Basing the removal on it being promotional, not properly sourced, etc. would all be supported by guidelines. Removing them because you say they are "not notable," without a guideline or policy based reason, will likely result in someone reverting the content and ultimately ending up in an edit war.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First I was told not to add the info and it was removed via an edit war on the UDR, Inc. page; then I removed the content from other pages and now that gets criticized also. If there is an answer, let me know...it doesn't matter to me.

The answer was already provided. You just don't seem to want to hear it. Trying to help but looks like that isn't happening. Do as you may but keep in mind there are policies and guidelines that govern conduct on Wikipedia. Sorry to try and give you advice. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, choosing to edit while logged out is fine but keep in mind the same guidelines and policies apply to everyone, regardless of editing from a user account or an ip address. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Sounder Bruce 23:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norma Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allan Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass blanking of pages is disruptive and you were doing it so fast that I didn't think a warning would be effective. Slow down and discuss. If this continues, you'll likely be indef'd. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some kind of threat? When I added financial info, I was told it does not belong in the article. When I delete it, I get blocked. You people really need to make up your minds....

Deletion of IrishCentral[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IrishCentral. You might want to look at some of the links on notability in particular. Sorry about that, but your article clearly didn't meet our notability requirements in any case. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Star Mississippi. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Homestay seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. StarM 21:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

How exactly is it not a neutral POV?

Redacting per note on my talk. This was my error. StarM 00:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for creating Möwe (DJ duo).

User:MrClog while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please make sure to add independent reliable sources to the article. The current version fully relies on a non-independent source.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MrClog}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MrClog (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Hello Wikieditor600. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to PulteGroup, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Wikieditor600. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Wikieditor600|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, i'm not paid and not sure exactly what makes you think I am....

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monotype Imaging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linotype (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome[edit]

Hi Wikieditor600. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Greiner[edit]

Hi Wikieditor600. Please seek consensus through a discussion on the article's talk page. The Biographies of living persons policy states:To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bucket shop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieve your work[edit]

Hi Wikieditor600, all your work with references added by you was probably accidentally removed at Consumers Distributing.

I help you with this link for the text source here that you can copy, then pasting it into the text source of the article by replacing the existing text source, it's the easiest way to retrieve all your work. It needs to be this entirely text source because there have been a revert due to some edits in the paragraph of relaunch from a banned user who promotes the relaunch that we see in the description of the revert, but it's not decent to remove also the good work with a lot of references made by you.118.109.68.90 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm UnnamedUser. I noticed that you recently removed content from Truist without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. UnnamedUser (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truist Financial[edit]

Maybe I did it wrong, but it should be made clear a lot of people didn't like the name Truist when it was first selected, and one source mentions this even now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Speedway Corporation[edit]

Hi. Can you find any sources which refer to ISC as anything other than "International Speedway Corporation" or its abbreviation? I'm having trouble finding anything in the MoS that justified your move, and even if there is something, I believe WP:COMMONNAME trumps it, so I moved it back. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having found WP:NCCORP, I see it actually doesn't justify your move at all "In some cases, leading articles (usually The) and suffixes (such as Company, International, Group, and so forth) are an integral part of the company name and should be included as specified by the company, especially when necessary for disambiguation (for example, The Walt Disney Company and The Coca-Cola Company)." GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Howardmarks.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Howardmarks.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary is not correct[edit]

Warm Showers 00:31, 26 April 2020‎ "Blog posts are not valid Wikipedia sources, none of these sources mention safety, and even if the sources were valid, Wikipedia cannot make safety recommendations based on a couple sources."

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your effort! The bold part of your edit summary is not true. Please, revert your edit and add it with a correct edit summary. --Geysirhead (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Supermarket News" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Supermarket News. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Supermarket News until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Inside Self-Storage" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Inside Self-Storage. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Inside Self-Storage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest[edit]

Recently I have seen that Mount Everest is showing in China in google map 🗺 and also I’m not satisfied with the location description given in Wikipedia about location on China . Mount Everest always been in Nepal . I’m very upset with this . Please provide some knowledge on this . If it’s error by the google . Ram Manohar Sah (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should give the valid reason and evidence why did they change. RabinasharmaA1 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

Origin of Mount everest is Nepal not China or Tibet. RabinasharmaA1 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account[edit]

Its clear this isn't your first account. Please declare all your accounts. If this is a valid clean start you can either email.me or register yourself with arbcom. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Wikieditor600 (talk)nope it's my only account.[reply]

June 2020[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 3 June 2020 (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).

Wikieditor600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't have any other accounts and I'm not sure what this is about. Also it is not clear what has been violated...all I did recently was nominate pages for deletion, almost all deletion nominations have been supported... Wikieditor600 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2020 (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.

Checkuser doesn't find any other accounts; however, Checkuser does show that you've been editing logged out about as much as you've been editing logged in; I see a fair number of examples of your making a small edit to an article without logging in (for example, standard things like changing http to https or updating alexa ratings) and then logging in to do something that requires it (creating an AFD). I don't see anything deceptive about it. You might want to explain why you're logged out so often; I'd guess you were IP editing for quite a while before you created an account. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but some explanation might help. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor600 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)I haven't bothered to log in every time I edit but I can in the future if that is a requirement.[reply]

@Jpgordon: just confirming you'd seen the comment by the editor in question. Obviously I'm not a CU, but I thought that editing just in a way that indicated "excessive" prior experience wasn't sufficient grounds to classify an account as a sock. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Obvious sock, we don’t have to play your games” is a valid block rationale if it’s clear we’re being trolled. I haven’t looked at this case, but it can be a valid reason to block. Usually we try to find another account, but sometimes it’s not possible and there’s no reason to treat AGF like a suicide pact. Like I said, answering the general question with no comments as to this specific case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Amerislogo.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amerislogo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Prosperitybanklogo.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Prosperitybanklogo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Phocuswire[edit]

Hello Wikieditor600,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Phocuswire for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]