User talk:MaranoFan/Archive 4

Unblock request[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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize if my edits there counted as violating my IBAN. I also apologize for the accidental violation and take full responsibility, but I do not think this violation disrupted the flow of discussion. I apologize for this edit which was uncalled for. But one can see that the post I was replying to clearly mentioned me thrice even though all the offences mentioned were off-topic to the discussion. I reverted it out after Ritchie advised me not to post there. There was also a post by Cullen advising me not to post there. I unfortunately took these as friendly advice and not an administrator warning, as neither occurred on my talk page, nor included the word 'warning'. I left the discussion and went far away from that page. It was only when I saw two or three alarming posts asking that the IBAN be lifted, which is when I believed the conversation involved me again. I only then went in to provide diffs that this wasn't an IBAN that should be lifted, and the claim that the edits at the Trainor article were the first violation in three years was visibly false. I had to go in and defend the IBAN that I fought hard to get in the first place. (covered by WP:BANEX) However, that discussion is archived now and the IBAN was not lifted (thankfully), so further violation of it from my part is impossible since the discussion is closed to further replies. My edits there were a genuine mistake because I believed an AN thread that directly involved me was exempt from the clause of the IBAN. However, this is obviously something thats not gonna repeat, so I'll request an unblock per Time Served. A month-long block here will do nothing constructive and only prevent me from quietly improving articles that I usually work on.--N Ø 07:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I had to go in and defend the IBAN..." is a red flag. No, you didn't have to go in and that illustrates the problem. You could have emailed the evidence to Ritchie and he could have posted there and you wouldn't have gotten into this mess. That you feel that you have to "go in" looks compulsive and makes me reluctant to unblock. You should have taken a step back and asked for assistance. Your unblock wasn't that long ago and you should know that this means you remain on thin ice.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2018 (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.

I'm not posting another formal unblock request currently (since I believe I said everything above, if any admin will be convinced to unblock me in the future then all the explanation has already been presented.) I just shortly want to acknowledge that the above request was intended as a "I know I messed up, I just don't see what good keeping me blocked for a month will do". I fully take responsibility for the mess-up. I just don't see how it could possibly happen again when the discussion itself is closed. But I'll respect your decline of my unblock appeal instead of rushing into another one. I'm sorry that it happened, I was trying to help the admins who were clearly uninformed about the recent developments and thought things had gone smoothly for three years, and with no IBAN violations. Which wasn't true as proved by my provided diff.--N Ø 21:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which wasn't true as proved by my provided diff. I don't think anyone will hate you for rushing another appeal as soon as you stop mentioning those things. Leave it alone already, please, whether or not you are right. The current length of the block is irrelevant, as you probably won't be unblocked until you stop arguing – leave arguing for admins. I'm sorry if I offended you, I just don't want you to be blocked for nonsensical reasons. Good luck with future appeals, and take care. wumbolo ^^^ 22:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well wishes, Wumbolo. None of what you posted offended me. I definitely don't have any intention to mention the argument again and again. If admins think this block should stay then I'll let it stay for a while. I think what a lot of people are missing is that I wasn't that active on Wikipedia anyway, so this block doesn't hurt me that much. I kinda have an exam to study for anyway, lol. (Thats not to say I wouldn't appreciate getting unblocked early and staying away from Wikipedia on my own terms, but it is what it is!)--N Ø 22:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:} I would strongly object if you invoke IAR and unblock. If no other admin is willing to unblock, that is an indication you might be too close to this. If another admin thinks differently and wants to modify the block, I disagree, but won't strongly object, and explicitly do not insist they seek consensus at AN/ANI first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would only do that if there was a clear and obvious consensus nobody minded, and that the only reason to do it is because all the other admins were down the pub. Obviously that's not the case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, how about you doing it? The right thing needs to be done, especially since BANEX applies, and the block does not protect the encyclopedia from any threat. Just unblock with time served. What's happening now is purely punitive, and certainly too long. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Meghan Trainor[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meghan Trainor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Meghan Trainor[edit]

The article Meghan Trainor you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Meghan Trainor for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 2[edit]

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

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

Request reason:

Hi, I suggest the admin responding to this request read my prior unblock appeal as well. I accidentally violated an IBAN at an AN discussion a few days ago. I thought at the time that my participation there would be useful and help admins. I've realized now that I was wrong about that. Its not been long since I came back from my last block and I have to be extra careful in the future. So, to assure admins that I won't make this mistake in the future, I'll use the Email feature to ask them if my participation in any similar discussion is appropriate. I do not believe this current month-long block serves the community. All my edits to mainspace since I came back have been constructive. I just had my first list promoted to FL and my GA nomination for Meghan Trainor was picked up for review. I believe unblocking me would highly serve the community as her birthday is coming up on December 22, and I'll be trying to bring her bio article up to FA status so it can be displayed on the main page. This block, which feels punitive rather than preventative, is not helping the Wikipedia community. Whether I'm unblocked today, or on December 3 when this block expires, only makes a negative difference as I'm not able to improve the Trainor article and its GA nom will probably be failed. I've already realized my mistake and have also indicated how I'll prevent it from happening again. I just want to stay as far away from disputes and drama as possible, and focusing on improving the several articles I usually work on. I already had a semi-retired template on my TP for a while, and I assure you I'll only be making uncontroversial contributions for a while and try to improve these along with some other pop music articles!--N Ø 13:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per consensus below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding as (I believe) a neutral observer: I'm strongly of the opinion that WP:BANEX applies to the comment which led to the block, specifically "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." (emphasis in original) MaranoFan and Winkelvi are mutually IBANned, there was a discussion in an appropriate forum directly concerning that ban, MaranoFan was entitled by policy to comment. As such, there is no justification for the block and it should be lifted. I would do so myself but there does not seem to be agreement among administrators that my interpretation applies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I don't see any admins except the blocking admin supporting a 1-month ban. wumbolo ^^^ 19:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's me too; that's maybe not clear because MF reverted some of my comments on this talk page just now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? The midterms are tomorrow! Right now, FiveThirtyEight has the House at 87.5% for Democrats, and the Senate at 83.2% for Republicans. Politico reports 216–197 for Democrats, not counting the toss-ups. wumbolo ^^^ 20:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some reason to believe I don't know this? Actually, nevermind; your response gives me the distinct impression that you'd be too tiresome to interact with further. I'll just step back and leave it in Ivanvector's capable hands. I trust his judgement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that you AGF'd, but now I see that you don't believe that MF decided to copy a userbox from Ritchie after seeing it for the first time, only a couple of days from the midterms. wumbolo ^^^ 21:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s exactly what actually happened, btw. Thanks for assuming good faith, Wumbolo!-N Ø 22:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but what does what you posted have ANYTHING to do with this? --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted just one comment which is linked here [1] as it cointains content that could unnecessarily prejudice people and bring in my political opinion into the mix. I welcome all commentary from Floquenbeam and any other admins here otherwise.--N Ø 19:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Floq, I read your reverted comment (you pinged me) and MF, duly noted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that MaranoFan should be unblocked as time served (Winklevi is now blocked so what is this block really achieving ?), and that a discussion should occur somewhere inregards to the clarification of BANEX. –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also support unblocking. When it is clear that the comments were allowed under a reasonable interpretation of WP:BANEX the block seems harsh, and the block has already caused any deterrence value it has (with MaranoFan giving a reasonable plan to avoid such issues in the future); and since Winkelvi is indeffed, there's no preventative value, leaving only a WP:PUNITIVE value. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, I support unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Supoort Unblock MF never violated BANEX so the block was a bad one. Blocking the victim of a now indeff'd user is not helping anyone. It actually harms other users who will be afraid to report or discuss violations of an IBAN that protects them. The IBAN should also be removed from MF as WV is gone and should not be back so it is just a useless editing restriction now. Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think there is no consensus to leave MaranoFan blocked. Floquenbeam, Atsme, MONGO (and anyone else not directly opposing the block) - any thoughts on how to progress? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply by unblocking per consensus, which I have done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to the consensus, thanks.--MONGO (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Meghan Trainor[edit]

The article Meghan Trainor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meghan Trainor for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time with FA though, and don't rush it; the prose needs to be checked a lot more thoroughly, more sources will need to be examined, and the dreaded manual of style needs to be vetted against very carefully. Still, having a GA will get you some of the way there. SNUGGUMS may be able to help. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I don't think it meets FA criteria quite yet. I'll be carefully vetting the sources and possibly putting it up for peer review beforehand. Will be glad to see SNUGGUMS as well as yourself post there!--N Ø 16:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Gaga/archive2 was done and dusted in about three weeks, but that had a team of three (or was it four) dedicated editors behind it fielding questions from all over the place. You want to be getting the article close to that level (not withstanding Meghan Trainor has not had a career that long and sustained) before even thinking of putting it there. Personally, I prefer to just do lots of GAs rather than toil and sweat over a single FA. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back and best wishes on this GA. Intend to work with new pages on the other end of the spectrum so I'll not be much help on this :) Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of those three dedicated editors for Gaga's FAC linked above, and it initially surprised me how fast that got promoted. Definitely a process that requires commitment and high attention to detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a small bit of trivia, I was going through boxes of old music gear yesterday and found a footswitch I bought from Maplin before Meghan Trainor was born. The MIDI cable I still have that I got for an Atari ST around 1987 isn't quite as old as Lady Gaga, but it's not far off.... :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review discussion is up! [2] Since my talk page gets so much traffic these days thought this is the best place to promote it.--N Ø 10:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Like I'm Gonna Lose You[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Like I'm Gonna Lose You you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Like I'm Gonna Lose You[edit]

The article Like I'm Gonna Lose You you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Like I'm Gonna Lose You for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Like I'm Gonna Lose You[edit]

The article Like I'm Gonna Lose You you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Like I'm Gonna Lose You for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Caution (Mariah Carey album)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Caution (Mariah Carey album).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Thank you for creating a relevant page cited with a good amount of reliable sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

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

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but...[edit]

Thanks for providing a source when creating a redirect (Beach House (song), but the source needs to actually be on the page you're linking to. URLs provided in edit summaries are invisible to everybody who doesn't check the article history. Also, the site you linked to says it's a Wordpress blog so it's not reliable (per WP:SPS) Ss112 03:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I thought them announcing the song title was similar to Ari announcing Thank U, Next (song) on Twitter which you thought was fine to exist. Let me just refrain from creating these new articles because I really can't grasp when its appropriate and when its not. Anyway, have a great day!--N Ø 05:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ariana song was from a primary source though, as she confirmed its title herself and Another Believer seemed to think it was only the title of her album and there was already a draft for the album, so was trying to have it deleted for mistaken reasons. Have the Chainsmokers announced it directly? If they have, that's okay as a temporary source. Ss112 06:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a fan tweeted them "Announce the title of the song" and they replied "beach house". They just ended up deleting it so I linked to a forum that had a screenshot of the exchange (still didn't think that was reliable enough for inclusion directly on the discography page).--N Ø 06:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]