User talk:Object404/Archive 2

Your recent editing history at Imelda Marcos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Re-adding wealth text that failed verification. Do not re-add without providing evidence it is in the sources. I cannot find it in any of the sources you have listed, and the sources you suggested on the talk page are junk. You can respond to this on the article's talk page, there is a already a discussion there Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the following books, because they are the sources in question: ^[1][2][3] If not, then you are disruptively deleting content from a Wikipedia article.-Object404 (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So. You are caught deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when you did not even read and verify the contents of the citations. This is dishonest and disruptive editing on your part, @Jtbobwaysf:. -Object404 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imelda Marcos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 06:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it seems that we have disputes regarding putting a "neutrality dispute template" on the page Ferdinand Marcos. I understand that you're trying to revert edits regarding POV, I'm just wondering why you think that this article is neutral even though it definitely requires an extensive check.

Regarding my "recent entry" and my "inexperience", no, I am not new to Wikipedia, I had an other account before that I forgot the username and password a long time ago. Plus, I think that 'good faith' should be executed here, I am not vandalizing but instead trying to push for neutrality in the article regarding the controversial person Ferdinand Marcos.

If this dispute doesn't get resolved, we'll just let the administrators settle the neutrality of the article on the NPOV noticeboard. I see that you had a history of edit warring and calls in noticeboards before, I won't call you out for it but I think we should settle the neutrality of the article not by edit warring but with professional talk.

With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." That you are seeing largely 'negative" content about the subject in the article is simply a function of the type of coverage the subject has gotten by published reliable sourcess.

Again, the "negative" coverage of Marcos is the majority view documented by reliable and historical sources, it is simply this reason why there is a perceived skew of "negative" coverage of the subject in the article. Feel free to add "positive" content, but make sure they are backed up by non-fringe reliable sources. as per WP:FALSEBALANCE which I keep mentioning: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." If you are proposing that there be equal amounts of "positive" and "negative" content on the article about the subject, then no, that is not the definition of Neutrality is within the bounds of Wikipedia editing. What you are proposing is FALSEBALANCE. -Object404 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, does putting "kleptocrat" in the lead section a good sign, plus over citations? I think it should be put in the middle section, along with the multiple repetitions that should either be rephrased or merged into one paragraph. I'm not a Marcos apologist, see good faith in me as such as I like democracy more than authoritarianism. We are settling the neutrality of the article, I believe that he is a corrupt individual but we must see both sides of the issue.

With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, kleptocracy is the defining hallmark of Ferdinand Marcos, along with his opulent extravagance and human rights abuses. Ferdinand Marcos is extremely famous and known all over the world for holding the Guinness World Record for most money stolen from a government. As such, the word is exactly where it belongs, in the lede. -Object404 (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PyroFloe (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mocha Uson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware that User:Azuresky Voight is engaging in an edit war with me and do not wish to engage in such and I informed him on his talk page prior to your pinging me. I am currently discussing relevant content on talk pages and I hope to resolve these subjects amicably. -Object404 (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Well Azuresky Voight is now banned from the topic of living people so they will not be able to discuss it with you further. Thank you for taking it to the talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Question: would it be alright over the next few days for me to go over the RJ Nieto page and go over the large swathes of content that Azuresky Voight deleted, carefully see which do not violate WP:BLP, and restore them as appropriate or fix them if they do? Azuresky Voight deleted large chunks of content on that article claiming violations of BLP policies, when in fact a good amount of the content he deleted do not. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. You should wait a full 24 hours since your last revert, and mention what you are doing on the talk page. As you say take care of BLP. If another editor has a problem of course stop and discuss. Azuresky did not seem to grasp the nuances of our BLP policy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ferdinand Marcos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. shanghai.^{talk to me} 08:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing.

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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

After taking a second look at the evidence involved here, I have unblocked. Further reading of the evidence raised a few questions about its reliability, and the person who sent the ticket in clearly had an axe to grind, so I'm questioning its reliability even more. This is entirely my fault; I was too quick to block and did not evaluate the evidence with a sufficiently critical eye. All I can say is that I am sorry for acting so hastily. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never engaged in paid editing on Wikipedia nor am I aware of any conflict of interest in my editing. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of games with EAX support, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with EAX support until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_games_with_EAX_support is where I exported it to. You could probably put it on the gaming fandom, or find a retro gaming forum, or whatever else this is used for. Just look around and see what's there. Even make your own if you want. Dream Focus 05:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -Object404 (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

	The Purple Barnstar
	Thank you, Object404, for your diligent coverage of fake news in the Philippines, despite receiving an egregious amount of harassment from a former editor. Your perseverance makes Wikipedia better. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are not already aware, please note that the policy on edits by and on behalf of blocked editors (WP:BE) states, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." This policy applies to illegitimate sockpuppets of previously blocked editors, e.g. Azuresky Voight (talk · contribs) and RhoNuPsiDelta (talk · contribs), who are sockpuppets of the previously blocked editor NoNDeSCRiPT (talk · contribs). Please feel free to contact me or another administrator if you encounter this former editor again. — Newslinger talk 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on VAPT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Object404. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:VAPT, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Know you feel strongly and have thanked me for other advice. Was looking at your recent edits and decided that others will likely act so some suggestions to mitigate risk of your useful contributions not being changed. Consider moving EEZ of Philippines statement to later in narrative. The lead to a geographical article can certainly mention a dispute exists but should be concise. The EEZ should ideally be mentioned later once the average reader understands why the shoal is notable. Stating that it is in the EEZ of Philippines is not why its notable as opposed to why some of those involved in the dispute think the recent actions of another party to the dispute makes it more notable. The subsection name "Ramming Incidents" is fine as far as I am concerned but you changed struck to rammed when this had already been used wrt to 19th August incident. Its more readable English to use alternative phraseology rather than labour a point already headlined. Better to draw the reader to their own conclusions having established that most commentators think these were deliberate actions, and draw the reader into the repetitive pattern. Remember WP:NOTNEWS so best to be vague if this can be expressed in simple English when using own words, rather than those of commentators while waiting to have all facts established. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's actually quite notable that it lies within the EEZ of the Philippines as it is now a potential flashpoint in the South China Sea for potential US-China conflict. See this 60 Minutes 13-minute documentary. -Object404 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also aware about word redundancy in English style guides, but the August 19 and 31 incidents are separate incidents. "Rammed" is fine, as "struck" is repeated a couple of times for variety afterwards. Also the usage of "rammed" is in keeping with the subheading. Moreover, the words struck and rammed have different connotations. -Object404 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes whatever. Previous editors had chosen these styles who seem to have a good history of contributions that tend to stand the test of time. I will forgo the documentary as a greater priority of the moment for me is reading a translation of the Saxon Chronicle for the first time as another editor may have shaded a less contentious article by using a secondary source and not checking back on the primary source themselves. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sabina Shoal. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. - STSC (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been backing up the items I put in the article with citations. You keep removing items from the article under the claim "cherry picking", but is actually a form of POV-pushing by omission. -Object404 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Object404. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "VAPT".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. STSC (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, but I had already taken things to the talk page after the reverts to collaborate and reach consensus. -Object404 (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You're a reasonable person please just withdraw all the media provided by the Philippine Coast Guard from the article Sabina Shoal. STSC (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. STSC (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. -Object404 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)