User talk:TheAstorPastor

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TheAstorPastor!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.


The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.


The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TheAstorPastor,

Thank you for taking an interest in "Waltzing Matilda". I hope that you have a good knowledge of the topic as well as as an understanding of the requirements of Wikipedia. Both are necessary for constructive editing. I will accept your deletion of my last edit although I am not sure that that I agree with your reason for doing so. Magoffin did some high quality research on "Waltzing Matilda" and also some poor quality research. I criticised his evidence as being very tenuous. This is justified by the cited reference. I also said that he seems to be biased which was perhaps based more on a book he wrote in 2005. I did not reference this book as it is very poorly written. I will accept your deletion because it is not supported by the references in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDW82 (talkcontribs) 07:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, BDW82
I reverted your edit because it did meet the requirements of WP:NPOV.You may add the content again to the article, but please provide a reference and a reliable one.And one more thing: dont forget to sign your comments by using four tildes TheAstorPastor (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed you have reverted a good faith IP edit and left a level 3 warning template on the editor's talk page. Please remember that anonymous editors are human too. I suggest that you strike out the warning template, apologize to the editor and be more careful in the future. Thanks, CpX41 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the IP did not explain why they removed the content and just wrote " trimmed tagged redlines " and due to their past history of disruptive editing and the past level 2 warning template,I left a level 3 warning template.I am sorry and just going to leave an apology at their TP :) I also striked out the template The AP (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.
Spicy (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[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).

TheAstorPastor (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

First of all, I am really sorry that I evaded my partial block, which was due to CIR and reverting good edits. I still revert edits but I don't revert any good edits and even if I did,it was due to a misunderstanding.I help Wikipidea by countering vandalism, and I am even working with User:Generalissima on this User:Generalissima/Amoskeag Manufacturing Company. This was good faith, and I am trying to cover up my previous mistakes by making useful and good contributions.User:ExclusiveEditor recently confessed to sock puppetry, and the community decision was to overturn his block. I hope the admin who will view this appeal would unblock me as I have only made good decisions.

Decline reason:

You were caught violating WP:SOCK rather than confessed to it. Thank you for admitting you were trying to cover up your actions, though. There's no chance this account will be unblocked but you can still use your original account, which is only partially blocked. Note that your abuse of multiple accounts to get around the sanction on that account will be held against you. Yamla (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (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.