This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You had time to type out "IP vandal" in your unfair attack on me where you showed you misunderstood what I said. That's a bummer because those two words in an edit summary would have been enough to keep me from bothering you in the first place. Revert me with another snotty edit summary this instant. City of Silver04:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emos vs. Punks, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that emos and anti-emos confronted each other, but Hare Krishna members de-escalated the situation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emos vs. Punks. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Emos vs. Punks), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
While patrolling recent changes, I noticed your addition on the Peso Pluma article [1] of {{For|the weight class|Featherweight}}. My instinct was to revert it, as when I checked the Featherweight article, there was no mention of peso or pluma. When I checked your contribs and talk page, I saw a seasoned and respected member of the community, who knows what they're doing. So I left it be, but I'm still curious. (RCPatroller with zero knowledge of weight classes or the Mexican performer) signed, Willondon (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Spanish, but I got to thinking "pluma is probably feather", and peso is money, right? Also weight as the translation software told me. Never mind. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you will probably want to update your signature. The correct format is CC BY-SA, not CC-BY-SA. Right now it uses the wrong hyperlink. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an editor has been blatantly and egregiously disruptive with clear "malice aforethought", you should always escalate through the structured warning template. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings.
This level 4 warning was unreasonably excessive and even a level 1 warning would have been questionable. The IP editor is making a serious and creditable point and should not be threatened with being blocked just because they have not gone the right way about making that point.
@JMF:Ironic, since the only person that "threatened with [a block]" here was you, a threat to an IP that wasn't even within a limit of the 3RR. You might be unaware of this, but Twinkle provides the levels by default. Giving a 3RR gives a Level-3 warn. (CC)Tbhotch™20:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Since {{uw-editwar}} says that an explicit 3RR/24hr vio is not required for a caution to be issued, I hadn't realised that it pressed the alarm button too. I tried first to issue a {{uw-editwar1}} to de-escalate matters, but it doesn't exist. Now I know why.
But I still assert that the IP editor was not being disruptive, just not playing by the rules that they are not aware of. The points they are making are certainly arguable and defensible, just not presented properly. I see you reverted my reversion and I accept your rationale in doing so, but I suggest you consider self-reverting now that you are aware of the broader context. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{ewsoft}} was what you probably intended. Not knowing the rules is not a justification even for newbies; when editing the webiste, you receive the disclaimer: "By publishing changes, you agree to the WP:Terms of Use". The level of warns were added for the patrolling bots and tools. file:Huggle3 kde ubuntu.png gives you an idea how Huggle perceives this (left column); silver is clean user, dark gray means something else (I haven't used Huggle in a while, possibly it means previously reverted, not warned), and the numbered squares the level of the warn. Whitelisted people won't appear in the tool. Twinkle doesn't use this system, but when warning it defaults to the next warn level. (CC)Tbhotch™20:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I see now that you have been an editor for a very long time, so I struggle to understand what motivated your action in this case? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Máximo Bistrot, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.
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.
Don't be silly. I'm glad you reported them; I didn't see that. But my point stands: there's no point in reverting them. No, it's not your fault, but the more you revert the more we have to clean up. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And don't call me "honey" please. Just report or find an active admin. This is MidAtlanticBaby, who craves attention. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and they're still at it of course, but there is something you can do cause you been watching a while: it may be that some are targeted more than others--you could report those for protection. I'll do a few but I gotta run. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Bib Gourmand.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).
Just so you know, you didn't have to do a pageswap to move Brain rot back to its original title. The redirect there had only one revision, so as a pagemover you could have simply overwritten it. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
