User talk:NoobThreePointOh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I-20 Talk Page Link

User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2024/February#Interstate 20 Extension (New Info), I found the link of the talk page. I did started to post there since I can’t add talk pages new section on I-20 talk page articles, but can edit I-20 articles. I also found a Reddit post saying there’s hope for I-20 extension with a picture of NCDOT saying “This may be it.”

Reddit Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/HighwayExtensions/comments/1awsbo5/maybe_theres_hope_of_extending_interstate_20_to/ 69.1.59.248 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@69.1.59.248 Reddit is a blog. You can never trust it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@69.1.59.248 NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Just look at the image from the post. 69.1.59.248 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

But According to the poster, Kung Fu Panda 4 releases on March 8th

The Poster and Fandango says it will release on March 8th. 23.245.44.64 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, however, you put "is" right next to "scheduled". If you do plan to add the edit again, be sure to put a space so that people don't get confused. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you ask one of the admins to unblock me from the Kung Fu Panda 4 article, because I have putted a space, and added the correct release date back. 23.245.44.64 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Department of Economics, The New School

You've declined Draft:Department of Economics, The New School as a copyvio. Please will you remove the copyright violating material (if you haven't already) and mark the revisions for revdel. I can't find the source dokumen.pub that you're referring to, to make any comparison. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove it ASAP. Thanks for letting me know. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep I'll have to do it when I get back, since I'm at school right now and I'm using a chromebook. Once I do, I'll go to my history and then pull up the website which shows the copyrighted material and then remove it. Otherwise, I think someone else can do it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I just asked him now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That "him" is Oshwah. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I saw that I was pinged here, but it looks like the matter has been taken care of. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me, poke, ping, smack, or prod me if there's something that I can assist with; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I just thought you might be the only oversighter, but I was wrong. Anyways, I'm glad I asked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Charles Keating IV draft

Not all that material was copyrighted. Like the gallery section and the other images. Why were those removed? Also why were the awards and decorations removed? And why remove most of my sources? 98.97.34.15 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@98.97.34.15 Generally I'm on my computer most of the time. However, when I removed the content, I was at school on a Chromebook and didn't have my computer with me to figure out where the content was copyrighted from. When I get back from school, I will take a look and figure out which parts weren't copyrighted. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. If I can at least start over with the material that wasn't copyrighted then thats better than almost nothing. 98.97.34.15 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@98.97.34.15 Yeah. Just make sure that you can write in your own words. It should be fine once you do. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I know some of my sentences were too close to the source, but 79% is quite a lot. Im guessing thats mostly the Awards and decorations section, the Navy Cross citation and description, and the image descriptions. Maybe also the paragraph about Keating's father and grandfather. Im not sure what else it would be. 98.97.34.15 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I do wish I had looked at the draft properly, because I do feel bad for declining it. I might recommend removing that, though. Other than the part which you stated might have been copyrighted, it does seem fine. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well thank you for your time and your quick replies. I have never reviewed someone else's draft, but Im sure its not easy. I apologize if it seemed like I had a bad attitude in my first post. Its just that I have been working on this article on and off for about 6 months. 98.97.34.15 (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Again, I should have just realized that this draft was being worked on for 6 months, but I decided to be an idiot and decline it immediately. Consider it a huge mistake on my part. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft on Department of Economics, the New School

Hi NoobThreePointOh,

You recently declined my draft submission for Department of Economics, the New School for having copyrighted material. You wrote that 53% of my material could be copyrighted but the copyvios shows 0% likelihood of a violation. I wrote the entire draft myself and there is no copyrighted material.

I reverted the draft to what I had written previously and removed three quotes and all of the photographs in the wikipedia page. I am hopeful that this will pass your test.

Could you take a look at the page and see if it now meets your standards?

Thank you,

Nick Andenick (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Right now I don't actually have my computer with me, so may I suggest going to the Wikipedia:Teahouse to ask? I might review when I get back, but I still got a busy day ahead of me. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I am not in a rush. I can wait. Andenick (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

With all the heavy load of work ahead of me, it might take a looonnnngg time. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I resubmitted for review.

If you are unable to double check the page, I can wait for someone else to review the page.

Good luck with your heavy workload. Andenick (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:STICK

Hey NoobThreePoint, was following up your replies made at User talk:NinjaRobotPirate. Friendly piece of advice, there was probably not a need to reply & ping three times there to someone's complaint about the talk page protection. While the poster was incorrect about Wikipedia's policies, it's not necessary to triple down in messages when one message, IF that, is sufficient. In that situation it seems more appropriate to drop the stick and deny excessive recognition, especially as it isn't your talk page or mine. Ferret was not actually suggesting an RfB brought about by one page protection. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes Whoops. My bad. Thanks for letting me know. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Block notices, user talk page

Blocked users are allowed to remove everything from their talk pages other than declined unblock requests. It doesn't make much sense to me -- I also think the block notices should have to remain while the block is in force. But that's not our policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jpgordon I read the policy. Honestly, that was a pretty huge mistake on my part. I wonder why the policy doesn't state that block notices should remain either. That is my only thought. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an old, old argument. Here's a big discussion on it from more than a decade ago. [1] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Advice on crafting SPI reports

Hi NoobThreePointOh, Thanks for keeping an eye out for this sock puppet. My suggestion for making an effective filing at SPI (one that makes the job of the reviewing administrator easier, and hopefully therefore leads to a quick block) is to make your comments clearly focused on the evidence of sock-puppetry. For example, in this case, that might be certain patterns about what specific articles get edited, the general nature of the edits, or even specific near-identical edits, presented with pairs of diffs ("here is the change this editor made, which is nearly identical to the change the blocked sock made", then as many copies of that as you care to assemble). Your initial comments in the latest filing were kind of vague, and the concept of WP:COI is obviously irrelevant---that could be confusing to a reviewing administrator, who may not be familiar with this editor. I hope this is helpful, JBL (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This is pretty good advice. I'll follow it next time. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks, but I'm happy for the abuse to stay - for evidence if nothing else. Nthep (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You sure? I kind of feel bad. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

its the sort of territory that goes with being an admin. Nthep (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright then. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Abu-Sittah page edits

Hey, I saw you removed my edits to Abu Sittah's page for anti-vandal. My edits were well cited and updated the page to cover events in his life around his running for Rector of Glasgow University wherein he has attracted significant press attention, including accusations which warrant a new controversies page. You will see that I had also made edits to other sections updating his info to March 2024 including his successful election as Rector. I think we should put this back but am very happy to hear comments/critiques of my source use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.167.62 (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. If you would like to put it back, go right ahead and do so, but please be sure to add a source. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Or properly source it if it was in there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look now at the sources if you do not mind, I want to make sure I am doing it al correctly! Appreciate your support.

Edit war by Dinkar 108 and his sockpuppet @Ajju109

Hello [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh], There is a Vandalism going on in different articles by @Dinkar 108 to whom you just warned not to make any changes under WP:UCR. Looks like he does not care about Wikipedia rules and warnings by Admins so he made another account @Ajju109 to do the same thing. Just look at his contribution on article Brahmin, Sanadhya Brahmin, Paliwal and many other articles. Notice his pattern of vandalising the information. Now, He is just reverting my edits just for the sake of reverting and removing content WP:UCR . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy murrey (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andy murrey Oh boy. That's not good. Okay, I'll try and report him to admins if he continues. Thanks for raising the issue to me. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello NoobThreePointOh can you look into this?

_TOC_

Dinkar 108

Dinkar 108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please note that a case was originally opened under Archive 2 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dinkar 108. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dinkar 108.

26 March 2024

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Hemraj108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stoickik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ajju109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

All the above users indulge in a same pattern of vandalising, removing and adding information according to their POV on brahmins , like Gaur Brahmins, sanadhya brahmin, jangid, paliwal , Kanyakubja. Now see their contributions [[2]] and now see the contributions of [[3]] and [[4]] . Just notice their contributions of how they reverted edits of others, vandalised and removed information on some particular articles and everything will be clear.

Rollback needed on Brahmin to your own last version

Hey User:NoobThreePointOh You need to check the article Brahmin where you reverted the changes made by a sockpuppet. Check the "Sacred land" portion of this article where Primary source is used and is unreliable for wikipedia. I request you to revert the current version to your own last best [version].

Please look into this urgently

You need to check the article Brahmin where you reverted the changes made by a sockpuppet. Check the "Sacred land" portion of this article in Origin section where Primary source is used and is unreliable for wikipedia. I request you to revert the current version to your own last best [version]. This is my 2nd request on your talk page because i am concerned about Vandalism in Brahmin by a sockpuppet warned by you too. Please revert those changes to your own last version where his changes were reverted by you.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Charles Keating IV draft timeline

Hey I just wanted ask what your estimated timeline is for adding back the parts of the Charles Keating IV draft that were not copyrighted.

I think I read in another topic on this page that you have a workload right now so I just wanted to now when you think you might get to it.

Im not trying to rush you or anything, I just don't want the draft to be deleted after a few more months.98.97.43.27 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Um... I'm truly not sure at all. I assume that if you edit it routinely or get someone else's help as well, it wouldn't get deleted. Keep editing though, and you'll get the draft published! :) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to put back everything you removed and then I can go back over my work and make sure everything isn't copyrighted before I resubmit? 98.97.43.27 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess I could restore your revision and that would add back whatever you put in. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@98.97.43.27 Okay, well I've restored your revision. Hopefully you can improve it and make it better. Let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, and happy editing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 98.97.43.27 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So I have started going back over the article, however at the top of the page it says "review waiting." Is there any way to unsubmit the draft without losing any of my work? 98.97.43.27 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess there would be a way; however, I'm a little unsure where the controls are. I looked at the "awaiting review" page, and I don't see it. You could ask someone else, like Theroadislong for help on unsubmitting the draft. I'm sure I could also restore a previous revision, but I'm nervous to remove whatever you put in. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I'll ask that user. 98.97.43.27 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocking Bringingthewood

Did you block that user? 114.125.84.73 (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@114.125.84.73 I am not an administrator. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi NTPO. It looks like I received a warning from an administrator regarding this IP user. Did you notice anything strange with what I did? i reverted for 'section blanking'. Maybe I'm seeing things. Any light to shed, please let me know. Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much. I guess not, but it depends. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Depends on what, I really don't know. But I went with what you wrote on Pirate's talk page earlier .. maybe the IP had a bone to pick (in so many words). I appreciate the response. Stay well. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee

Thanks for offering to review this article. However, are you sure you don't have any comments or issues with the article? It is extremely rare for an article, especially one this long, to pass without any comments from the reviewer. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013 Well, I couldn't figure out how to properly add comments. I did take a look at the article though; it does seem very well written, and I found no "citation needed" tags, nor did I see anything that needed to be sourced. I mean, for a highway that's 58 miles long, that's actually a good route description and history. Plus, I didn't see any edit warring or anything. I mean, I could still add some improvements, like more citations or something, but overall it's concise and clear in the wording. If you're okay with me still trying to help add citations, that's fine. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is also my first time trying to review an article like that, so maybe it might take me a while to get used to it. I'm also hoping someone reviews my articles that I placed for GA as well. I guess practice makes perfect. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand. It takes a while to get used to the GA process. I'm probably going to ask for a second opinion at WT:GA. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

True. I assume that they might say the article looks good. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I see you've nominated the articles for I-40 and I-85 in North Carolina for GA. I'm not going to fail them, but I would like to let you know that I think they've got a lot of issues that need to be addressed before they have a chance of passing. I'm not sure they totally meet criteria 3 yet. The biggest problem is the over reliance on maps for opening dates; this is strongly discouraged if sources that provide more precise dates, such as newspapers or records from state DOTs, are available. In this case, the newspapers probably covered most of the openings. If you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, I can do research for you. There are likely records from NCDOT online, such as annual reports, that provide some of this information also.

Both articles are also missing information about post-construction projects, such as widenings or interchange reconstructions. In the case of I-40, since the segment in North Carolina is so long and wasn't all authorized at the same time, you will probably want to split up the construction segment into at least two subsections. I'm thinking one about the initial construction, and then one about the extension. There also needs to be information about the background that resulted in the extension being approved; that might end up being its own subsection. I don't know much, but if I remember right, the state began advocating for the extension pretty much as soon as the Interstate Highway System was approved, and multiple routes were proposed. Since both Interstates pass through so many large metro areas and have lots of post-construction history, the articles will most likely end up being longer than articles about other Interstates of similar length, such as Interstate 25 in New Mexico (I-40) or Interstate 76 (Colorado–Nebraska) (I-85).

Lastly, if you want to get an idea of how to improve these articles, I recommend taking a look at Interstate 40 in Tennessee, which is currently a featured article. I'd also be willing to review the articles more thoroughly and suggest improvements if you'd like. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will definitely take a look. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, for the I-85 article, there's not much info for the "Durham to Virginia" sections, since there's not really a lot of sources that I can find online. You can help though, and I'd gladly appreciate it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013 And yes, sadly I don't have a Newspapers.com subscription. Improvements can definitely be made to the articles. I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I guess you might be able to help with the I-40 article though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I was also reading criteria 3, and while I think you might be right on that one, it says, "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." I think it depends on how well the article is written. I looked at the I-81 TN article, and it seems about the same as the I-40 and I-85 articles with the only difference being that the I-40 article has a longer route description, but the same history and construction length, and the I-85 article has a shorter history section but the same route description length. I guess the citations can be changed for them, but... maybe the articles have a chance to pass??? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, it says on the comparison between good and featured articles that good articles need to only meet five out of six of the criteria steps. I might be wrong on that, but, eh. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

About 442oons

I didn't add that trivia. It had been reverted and I simply un-reverted it. Therefore, I did not vandalize the page. Thanks 92.239.82.188 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I know you did not vandalize the page. But it is unacceptable to add unsourced info like that. Please do not continue to add info without forming a consensus. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, I did not add it. It had been removed and I simply reverted the removal. 92.239.82.188 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

92.239.82.188, reverting the removal is re-adding. You're insisting on a distinction which does not exist. Cabayi (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

UAA

Thanks for the report at WP:UAA but please note that some wikis allow organisation accounts - see Commons policy for an example, the German wiki is another. Please don't report users at WP:UAA if they haven't edited on this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright. I'll be more careful next time. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Andrews, NC Page

Hello! I saw you removed my edit on the page of the town of Andrews, NC. On the 'Education' section of the page I made an edit adding information about the second expansion of Andrews Elementary. You stated through a message that the information was incorrect. I have returned that information, and added a picture of the plaque in the school building that supports my information. There is no article regarding the expansion, so I couldn't source it. The image is the only source of information about the expansion. I understand without sources, the information may be incorrect, but the picture I included will prove otherwise.

Thank you very much, and have a great day!

JoshuaB.King29 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@JoshuaB.King29 Alright then, you may go ahead and add your information again. I might have been too hasty to revert it, but you're free to add it back if you please. Cheers! NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)