User talk:Can I Log In

User Page Dashboard Biography Talk Page

Can I Log In prefers to receive notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to him on other pages. No talkback messages are needed.

Registered users

IP users

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm! Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Can I Log In. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia Contributing to Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages How to write a great article Editor's index to Wikipedia Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! User:SSSB (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC) SSSB (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

May 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Refs

Please avoid bare URLs when you add references, as you did here. Also, I am not super-thrilled with the idea of adding a link to Special:UserLogin in your signature, as it could be misconstrued as an attempt to gain access to someone's account. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I do avoid bare URLs. This time I just forgot to switch to visual editor. Citation expander took forever, refill wasn't working at the time. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, this was more of a note than any chastisement. Any thoughts about your sig? Primefac (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Misconstrued. Yup, happens to me a lot. A lot. I may change it if it's apparently a disruptive link. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 21:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Talked to a couple of other admins, just to get opinions. The general consensus is that it is somewhat of a problem. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, your sig seems to violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Miniapolis 17:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn cross-wiki

It's very important that you do not use RedWarn cross-wiki just yet - I have localisations plans soon, but all of RedWarns API calls are hard-coded to use en.wikipedia.org - running on a different Wiki means every action you take there will just happen on English Wikipedia instead causing potential disruption. I'll try and get localisation working as soon as it's feasible. Ed6767 talk! 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

My recent edits on the impeachment of Donald Trump

Hello. I wanted to post a coment here to explain myself in relation to the matter in question. For an extended period, one editor (whose edits I reverted most recently) repeatedly introduced the wording about a bipartisan impeachment, and was repeatedly reverted by other users when they continued to add that content. I thought I had remembered a consensus decision defining bipartisan support for any measure as coming into play when multiple people from the opposing party crossed the aisle, which did not apply to the impeachment matter, since only one senator (Mitt Romney from Utah) crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats on one of the two charges. I accordingly reverted those edits again, as had been done in the past, which I believed was the correct thing to do. When my latest revert was in turn reverted, the reasoning given was that the consensus that I had remembered as being established might have never actually occurred. If that is indeed correct, I was in error, and I was correctly called on it. I never meant to violate any rules, if that is indeed what happened here. I have edited here on Wikipedia in various capacities for around 14 years, and my record speaks for itself, including my cooperation with other editors, and agreeing to and upholding consensus when that is established. My intention was not to break the rules here, but merely to preserve the content that I believed was protected by consensus. I am more than willing to recognize that I may have been mistaken on this matter, and if I acted inappropriately or improperly, that's on me. But I hope it is understood that I have always done my best to assume good faith and to support Wikipedia policies and consensus decisions, even if at times I don't agree with those 100%. With all that noted, please feel free to let me know, through replying here on your page, or through a comment on my talk page, if you need more information from me on that. Thanks, and again, my apologies if I acted imprudently or against policy in this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Seriousness vs. fun

Hi Can I Log In,

If I understand correctly, you enjoy editing and modifying preferences. I'm happy to see that you enjoy this, but – when having a look at a report at WP:UAA about User talk:Qwertyuioppoiuytrewqmnbhagdidnegxkfnrhdicnrnebjcjdmd – I have noticed two things:

• The edit summary generated by Twinkle ends in "TW" by default, and I believe that two considerations led to this decision: Keeping it short, as it's not that relevant and more an automatic little tag. And keeping it serious, not "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" when reverting changes and warning users, to avoid confusion or, in the worst case, making people feel mocked.
• Signatures are primarily meant to display who has written a message, and when. Signatures should probably not contain links to interface pages (such as the login page, as interestingly someone has already complained above) or template pages. If the purpose of linking {{reply to}} in your signature is educating those who read it about the template usage, I'd like to propose a different approach: There are, by default, two links in your signature. One to your user page, and one to your talk page. If you keep both pages readable, concise and with an easy link to Special:NewSection/User talk:Can I Log In, there is no need for detailed instructions. I'm not sure how a disabled wikibreak switch is important to any reader, I'd say {{talkheader}} is unnecessarily complicated and detailed, especially with its optional "disclaimer" enabled, and any distinction between registered users and IP editors can be done automatically (see the source code of my talk page). I see a wall of irrelevant text above the only sentence needed to make it easy to reply: "Please click here to leave me a new message." So simple. Add a similarly clearly visible link to your user page, and you suddenly have no need for complicated instructions and a weird signature anymore.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the concern about by huge talk page lead, considering that I infrequently get new messages, it'll probably be shortened, though I also infrequently edit my user page(s). {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume that you strongly disagree about the other concerns, as Special:Diff/961719612 happened afterwards? I have received a "thank you" notification from yet another administrator for sending the original message. If you merely ignore it, I will take it to WP:ANI. There are enough complaints to make it reasonable to ask you to start listening. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If that is apparently a concern, you can keep track of me changing my TW preferences as you would've seen this. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, thank you very much. It may be obvious, but I have a feeling I should mention that this change has happened five minutes after my message, after twelve hours of inactivity. Thus I'm not entirely sure how "I would have seen" this change before requesting it.

May I kindly ask you to reconsider the confusing signature link as well? You deal a lot with newcomers, and I find it hard to understand why you would complicate their first steps with unnecessary confusion. The signature was what brought me here in the first place; the Twinkle summary is something I noticed after having a look at the recent contributions. That said, I may not be the ideal person to complain about signatures, as my opinion about fancy signatures is rather extreme (WP:SIGRANT). I recommend that, if anyone (!) else, be it a newbie or an administrator, complains about your signature in the future, you finally change it without further discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition

Hi! As far as I know, MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition can be edited only by interface administrators—its title doesn’t end with .css or .js, but its content controls what CSS/JS is executed for whom, so it’s a risky page as well. For example, I’m an admin on huwikisource, yet I can’t edit s:hu:MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, I get the same error message as on actual CSS/JS pages. So I suggest reverting the protected edit request template to {{edit interface-protected}}. Regards, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Tacsipacsi WP:REDLOCK system-wide .js and .css pages are restricted to interface admins (and interface editors). The rest in the MediaWiki namespace are restricted to regular sysops (and interface editors. You can try pressing the submit edit request button and it will preload the FPER template instead of the IPER template. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are not authoritative sources of information. The policy is definitive source of what the community accepted, but nothing guarantees that it accurately describes the technical environment. MediaWiki:Protectedinterface—which is displayed on the edit page for users who are not allowed to modify it—uses a heuristics to determine what template should be used, so it may be wrong. The only authoritative source is the experience of an English Wikipedia administrator, while the next closest sources are experience on other wikis and analyzing the source code itself (but nuances can lead to different results, so it’s not easy to get it right). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

decline of request for article on Parvaneh Pourshariati

Dear Can-I-Log-In

I am new to WikiPedia editing, and I just want to understand why my proposed article in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession/Historians on "Parvaneh Pourshariati" was marked as "not notable"by you at 04:50, 13 June 2020. I assumed since the article exists in Persian Wikipedia (Farsi), it would have passed the notability test. What other documentation should I provide to make the item "notable"? The person in question is considered as one of the leading figures in the US in the study of Early Islam and late antique Iran.

Yours --Shamfuturu (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Shamfuturu Hi there. So this was you, which I then reverted later here.

The general criteria for notability is as quoted from WP:GNG.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

You cited 2 Wikipedia articles, the subject herself and being the former president of ASPS. Wikipedia articles and other user-generated content are not reliable sources since anyone can change them. You cited a website to CUNY ([1], which is not independent of the subject. Last of all, you cited an Amazon item, which does not show significant coverage, not just passing a mention.

So there you go, it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Even then, it would have to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR.

And regarding the Wikipedia article of the subject on fawiki, I found their WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO; their guidelines are similar to enwiki. There are 3 references you could use from that article however, but if a deletionist finds it, it'll probably be discussed for deletion.

In general you need a minimum of 2 (3 is recommended) reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank for the clarification. I will look for substantiating sources from outside.

Yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamfuturu (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Shamfuturu No problem. If you need any further help, you can place {{help me}} on your talk page with your question, ask at the help desk, or the teahouse (the help desk for newcomers).

And about the article you want to request, requesting an article is extremely slow. Perhaps you could translate the article from fawiki. You can start a draft article with the Wikipedia:Article_wizard.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 04:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

article Leo van de Pas

Following extensive improvement work, please can you reconsider your notability and add cit tags on the above article, or engage in the Talk Page Icairns 2 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So here is what I think of it now.

• Article assessment—I have speedy reassessed it to Start-Class since that is definitely not a stub.
• Notability—I think that the article meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is borderline, and has the possibility of being draftified. The article having been marked as reviewed by a new page patroller, it can stay. Like I said, notability is borderline which brings me to my next point.
• Reliable sources—The sources you normally want to go after are independent, secondary sources. I see a lot of sources from https://genealogics.org; it is associated with oh guess what? The subject of the article Leo van de Pas. Not an independent source. I also see some self-publsihed sources. Unless it came form the subject itself, You normally don't want to use self-published sources, especially on a biography of living persons. The sources you have used are not deprecated; you can still use them; it is just preferred that you use other sources when possible.

So that is my feedback on the article; it can stay as it is, and you can definitely expand it. Maybe on day you can get it to featured article.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your consideration. Icairns 2 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of a word

Just as a bit of a word of advice, sometimes you come on quite strong and interact with others in a way that I would describe as rude, whether intentional or not. As a few examples:

• all caps calling people crappy isn't ideal
• hatting a section you yourself are commenting in with the edit summary "welcome to Hell" and a reply lecturing people on grammar is basically the epitomey of rudeness. In most English-speaking countries, it is considered very rude to correct the grammar of adults, even if it is wrong, because you correct the grammar of children.
• All caps is considered yelling on the internet. Additionally, lecturing people who have been here significantly longer than you on how Wikipedia works is generally considered bad form. Deb was the second RfA on the RfA page. While you are certainly free to disagree with people, both in real life and on Wikipedia people lecturing people who reasonably know what you're telling them about tends to really annoy people.
• Lecturing an admin on BITE when they are asking a valid question on how to deal with things.
• This comment to Ritchie333 telling him not to assume people were male. This is a pretty normal thing based on the historical usage of he as the neutral pronoun in English, and in some English-speaking regions it continues to be the norm. There's no reason for the assumption of bad faith and lecturing here.
• The general dismissive attitude in this thread and combativeness towards people expressing legitimate concerns.

Anyway, I guess that this is a warning to tone down your approach towards people. I guess its a WP:CIVIL issue, but really it's m:Don't be a jerk. This type of minor things that really annoy people build up over time, and can lead to sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For the awesome CVUA template: job well done! Cheers -- puddleglum2.0 05:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Declined I am not 21, the legal drinking age in the U.S. My date of birth is 2018-03-18. [Warned]. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

In lieu of the beer. -- puddleglum2.0 19:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Template changes

Hi Can I Log In,

sorry, it's me again, but I promise this is a coincidence, caused by my surprised look at Special:Diff/964082465, a broken Twinkle ANI notification.

I'm concerned about two things:

• The lack of actual testing during, or at least after, the template changes [2]
• Reverting to an own revision after a revert, in the template namespace (Special:Diff/964081532).

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

PS, actually, the testing was probably fine; the lack of a signature just caused the problem to go unnoticed. No worries about that, I think, then. I'm out. Especially as this is about a signature. Heh. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix and test :) No worries from my side anymore. All good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh about the revert, I practice 1RR. If you think your intentions were misunderstood, revert it back. Now to remember no new lines for <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>. Otherwise, it causes whitespace. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the edit request template: Ah, well, my personal interpretation of 1RR is WP:BRD. My personal interpretation is "You're always welcome to revert after a bold edit, and then discussion should happen". But after a bold edit was reverted, I personally wouldn't revert back to my revision. If 1RR is purely about reverts, perhaps one can say that boldly overwriting an entire template is a revert itself, somehow. A similar interpretation can be found at WP:WHEEL, but that only applies to administrative actions. Hmm. Well. It was re-reverted by bradv now anyway. I just noticed it when checking if there had been testing.

Regarding my revert, I have no opinion about this other than "as long as it works, everything is fine". So no worries, really. All the best. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 GOCE blitz bling

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Can I Log In for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the blitz! Please consider voting in the GOCE coordinator elections which are open through 30 June. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

Six weeks ago you had been issued a final warning which seemed to be a turning point for you. Comments like this is backsliding from that. Stay on the positive path. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It was just a note? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Your endorsing an action was not needed. Your comment that a nomination counts as a delete !vote is correct but is also of questionable helpfulness for someone who should not be closing XfDs, for reasons already enumerated by L235. It is, through good intentions, a form of disruption. These kind of good intended disruptive comments and actions are what landed you a final warning which is why I give you this reminder. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Huey

Hi there!

I just responded to this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huey_(rapper)#Huey%E2%80%94information_not_contained_at_sources

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear Can I Log In,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Triveni Sangh

Hi i need ur help.I created a draft article recently.How to publish it in mainspace? Heba Aisha (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So I did some cleanup on the draft; here is some feedback.

• Duplicate references—please see WP:IBID on this or preferably WP:NAMEDREFS.
• Spacing and reference footnotes—I hate it when I see this, but it's very easy to clean up. You want to have no space before a reference footnote, and a space after.
• Disambiguation pages—You wikilinked to Shahabad, a disambiguation page. You almost never want to do that in an article's main content. Reading the context, I have changed the link to Shahabad District.

You say that your draft is ready, so place {{subst:submit}} at the top of our draft and an AfC reviewer will accept or decline it. I predict the chances for it being published ot mainspace is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely).

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Heba Aisha (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

CSDs

Generally we do not delete talk pages. Tiderolls 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls or just any type of trolls. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for lacking the competence to edit Wikipedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Since March, which is when you truly became active, and in only looking through your talk page archives, I see a pattern of disruptive editing across a wide range of Wikipedia.

• Raced to include information without a source
• Left experienced users warning messages (which you are still seemingly doing today
• Restored vandalism
• Had issues five different issues with their signature:
  • Time 1
  • Time 2
  • Time 3
  • Time 4
  • Time 5
• Engaged in disruptive April Fools jokes: 1, 2, 3
• Unnecessarily changed templates at RfD
• Had an RfC close over turned
• Clerked a PERM page
• Used a script cross wiki which was not capable of being used cross wiki and which use could disrupt English Wikipedia
• Inappropriately joked at UAA
• Attempted to edit a gadget
• Broke a Twinkle template
• Incorrectly attempted a G6 because "I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls"

Then there are more serious problems you've had including reverse engineering a script to do mass edits. You have also spoken to other editors in a way that merited a formal notice by TonyBallioni who had previously left you a warning after you disruptively edited policy/guideline pages.

No single incident is on their own troubling. But there are patterns of problems (including signatures, technical editing you do not do correctly, and attempting to dive into project space tasks which you lack the background and/or skill to do successfully), a wide range of these problems, and a discussion style that is confrontational and not in the collaborative spirit of this project. On the plus side, after a rocky start, you do seem to do a good job with copy editing. However, that positive is not enough to outweigh all the negatives or enough to show that you have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I would like to address the concerns in no particular order, particularly the early ones.

• Raced to include information without a source—I haven't done that any more, and I've been strict on the sourcing.
• Templating regulars—That one I've learned to not needlessly drop by. That note about the protection was intendle to be a note.
• Restored vandalism—I didn't know about TW enough to understand the restore button, even though it meant restore. I haven't accidentaly done that since that.
• Signature—not as much of a severe problem as it was before.

From this point on is when things really get hot.

• reverse engineering a script to do mass edits—I should've never done that.
• RfD template—I believe you were referring to this one. I though the "hard" redirect was actually supposed to be there. That one I have learned from.
• Had an RfC close over turned—while the consensus was correct, weeks/months later, I see how it was a bad close.
• Clerked a PERM page—my bad, should've never gone it.
• Inappropriately joked at UAA—I never joked at UAA. What that thread was about was my TW edit summar "Twinkle Twinkle Little Start".
• Used a script cross wiki which was not capable of being used cross wiki and which use could disrupt English Wikipedia—never happened since I don't have (auto)confirmed status on wikis that would load it.
• Attempted to edit a gadget—the thread was about if it was editable by only administrators or interface admins.
• Broke a Twinkle template—fixed
• Incorrectly attempted a G6 because "I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls"—I should've never done that in the first place

OK so I made my statement. I just wanted to address the issues, and now here we are. What is next to move forward?

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately you need to address the reason for the block. As I wrote the problem was not any individual incident, it was the total picture presented by all these different things when looked at together. So replying about each diff presented isn't actually responding to the concern.

In terms of the block being lifted you have a couple options. You can discuss with me what will be different if you were to be unblocked. If I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently I will lift the block. Or you can use the unblock template to get a different administrator to look at things. Choosing one of these options does not prevent you from doing the other one in the future. But the first step is to do as the blocking template instructs and read the guide to appealing blocks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I'll summarize the block in 2 words. recklessly bold. While being bold is desired to article related content and its related talk page, not a good idea in the "behind the scenes". This means if I were to be unblocked, I would have to be extremely STRICT on what edits I make in project space unrelated to article content (WikiProjects, other article clean-up related task). I would define strict as anything in project space that are

• stuff I'm currently working on pre-block
• incidents or discussions I've been involved in or explicitly invited to make a comment
• anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion, legit questions
• and if necessary for some super strange and unusual IAR rationale, well IAR.

In short, don't be bold in project space. I can just sit back and see what's going on behind the scenes, but not intervene without the good strict reason.

Now in my opinion, this doesn't really cover the current user-interaction concerns. The main problem with this piece of the block is that some of my comments are be construed differently than I intended; this is definitely a major concern. This is probably another don't be bold thing and do what I said above.

An unblock with or without a mandated restriction is discretionary, but I will have to voluntarily abide by the above if I am going to be unblocked. I won't ask for another opinion on this right now; my words above I stand by.

Can I Log In (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, this is on the right track of how I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently. I am glad we're off to a productive start. Before I respond more substantively, I want to understand what you're proposing. What do you see as stuff I'm currently working on pre-block and can you give me a diff that would be an example of you offering anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion and a diff of an example of what you see as legit questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

For one, a content dispute over with Primfac on whether {{Edit partially-blocked}} should function like other protected edit request template such as {{edit semi-protected}} or just merge it with {{request edit}}, the COI edit request template. I'm not explaining that dispute in further detail, nor will I explain its background, but once it would be over, slowly "advertise", but not disruptively, the template (add links to related pages and templates) (this part of the unblocking may be blocked). Other than that, there isn't really much about stuff I'm currently working on pre-block, so that would go away quickly within estimate a month.

Productive comments—I've been watching this ArbCom clarification request regarding the ARBPIA General Sanctions. One of the arbitrators made a comment which I believe was not the intention, so I made my statement with what I found from the ARBPIA3 case.

Non-productive comemnts—ANI or ArbCom, both are heated when there is an indepth discussion. So I found Why is this ok?, and uh, for one, that should be at village pump since there is no long-term or urgent user-conduct issues, and two, the productivity of that I find to be borderline. WIth my intention of don't be bold, if you're not certain, just don't.

Another example—ANI again. This is a genuine and legit question from what appears to be a new editor.

I'll stop providing example here. If you need more... OK I will. Those are some examples I found.

Can I Log In (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No, we are not going to talk about this during an unblock discussion. Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You are currently the only one who thinks that {{PBER}} should be changed, and I wish you'd drop that stick; partial block edit requests are essentially edit requests, because the page is (generally speaking) unprotected, so it falls in the same category. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) And as it functions, has needless parameters that I find unneccessary since they are designed for COI. {{request edit}} is a COI edit request; {{PBER}} is similar to protected edit request. Can I Log In (talk) 17:02, July 2, 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, do you have an example of a legit question that you have asked? I think that presents clearer sense of what is being talkeda about than another editor's question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is the publisher?, one time I had a question about The London Gazette. And a genuine but not very useful, but legit. A question regarding my first RfPP request which was declined. A technical problem with preferences.

And since April, really no questions asked. If I do have to ask a question, well think about how I asked these.

Can I Log In (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, thanks. That's helpful. After reading the diffs you provided, and considering the past issues, I agree with the general thrust of what you're proposing but think we need to look at a more radical version of it.

You stop all activities that are not related to content creation. Exceptions to this will be narrowly construed and need to directly involve your content work.

You may, following the lifting of the block, make one change to your user signature and you may make subsequent corrective changes if suggested by other users. Otherwise leave your signature alone for the length of these restrictions.

To give some parameters as to what content creation means, copy editing is a form of content creation so that can continue (I'll discuss the GOCE more in a moment). Recent change patrolling and other counter vandalism patrolling are important pieces of work but are not content creation so that stops. Responding to people on your user talk is obviously fine. Asking legitimate questions, like what you linked above, is fine and even encouraged. Templating, warning, or correcting editors is not necessary to content creation so I would expect your use of other's talk pages to be limited things like pointing them towards talk page discussions or asking legitimate questions. Speaking of which, using article talk pages is a core part of the content creation process and so using them is fine. You can use noticeboards as needed to report on users you came into contact with while doing content creation or to respond if you are brought to one. If for some reason you need help not permitted by this restriction (i.e. an article you've done content work on has been vandalized and nothing has happened after a reasonable amount of time and after you've posted on the article talk page) you may use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates.
The conversation you linked at {{PBER}} is an excellent example of a principle I don't think you've yet absorbed but are going to need to to continue here: there are other editors who understand Wikipedia and it systems better than you. You need to be asking more questions and making fewer changes and fewer statements about how things are or should be. Primefac is among our most respected editors; that respect led him to be chosen first as a sysop and then a bureaucrat. For him to stop a conversation because you're not listening to what he's writing says something and it's not about Primefac. Instead of getting into a disagreement that could have and should have been an opportunity to learn. That conversation plays out differently if you'd started with a question and then really thought and considered the answer and then maybe asked another question. If you do this, you are eventually going to learn enough to be able to starting really answering questions and having opinions and ideas that are not disruptive but which improve the encyclopedia. If you need a second example of what needs to stop, it would be telling me how unblock edit restrictions work. I have been trusted with the sysop toolset for a reason and part of the basis of that trust is because I know when I need to ask questions about something.
Without your GOCE work this would be a different story. That work has been the best, and perhaps only, evidence that you can be a positive productive Wikipedian. Without it I do not invest the significant time I have just done typing this all out in hopes of guiding you in a better direction; instead I tell you to file an appeal, knowing it probably gets declined, and you have to wait six months to ask for the standard offer. As it seems like you're doing good work there, and because you are seen as a positive, if you would like to participate in that project during this time of editing restriction that's fine. The idea will be to give you a space where you can demonstrate the new better you. A word of warning though: because things would be looking very different without the GOCE, were that project, or leaders of that project, to feel differently than they do today about your participation we'd have to re-examine whether or not you were a net positive.
Because I am a reasonable person, I will listen to suggestions you have about this, assuming you are agreeable to the overall principle and framework. I will gladly answer questions you have about it. But tread carefully with this - it is the first chance for you to demonstrate you're absorbing the larger message of this block. Assuming you are agreeable and get unblocked, I would see violations of this restriction, of which I'd hope there would be none, generally being met with a series of escalating blocks (if I'm the one doing it, I'll likely start at 3 days). As noted if problems are reported from the GOCE, however, that could be a very different situation. In terms of appeal, I would see us being able to revisit elements of this in as few as 3 months assuming there aren't problems (i.e. maybe you can start using your pending changes reviewer permission again which is a nice segue between counter vandalism and content work). If this gradual easing of restrictions works, I think in as little as six months (meaning maybe longer) all editing restrictions could be removed. What do you think? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Some words from 2 uninvolved editors. Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Can I Log In; I was quite surprised to see your account blocked but here we are. No-one wants to exclude you but the admins need to protect the project from disruption, intentional or not. Please treat the conditions of Barkeep49's offer above seriously. If you're unblocked, please concentrate on article work and stay away from obscure behind-the-scenes processes: with respect, you don't appear to have enough WP experience or the maturity to involve yourself in these areas of the project. On the positive side, your copy-editing has been good so I hope you'll stay active at the GOCE and continue working in article space to build up some editing experience. Copy-editing is a great way to learn about what's acceptable in Wikipedia articles and article-writing can build skills in researching, quoting and referencing, which are all useful skills outside WP. You could look upon this block as a learning experience; we all make mistakes sometimes. I hope we'll see you at the GOCE again. Cheers and good luck, Baffle☿gab 05:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Well I didn't expect to see this when I came to your talk page to say thanks about Koeri but I'll reiterate what Baffle gab says and I'll add my own endorsement that certainly in areas like copy editing you are going the extra distance. I declined to revdel a copyvio as I couldn't see enough of the source material (Google books snippet) so you made that extra effort to find me the necessary material so I could revdel with confidence. Stick to articles and stay away from policy and procedure pages unless it is to ask questions. Nthep (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is a restriction to content creation and other maintanence work related to it.

There are 2 types of templates. Thoses used in articles, and those not used in articles. I once came a across {{CHE}} during a copyedit which had an annoying double space which I hated. I even tried to trace down the problem and then just plain abandonded it.

1. If I were ever to revisit this issue and found a solution, would I be permitted to file a TPER?
2. Any touching of templates for use in content is allowed right?

There is a regular backlog of semi-protected edit request and COI edit request, all relating to article content for which they are unable to edit, and that makes up most of my talk space edits. Would reviewing of these edit request still be permitted.

In terms of other article maintanence I do, sourcing, merging, bare URLs as refernces, just plain cleanup I find neccessary, and uh all the sudden if I find a copyvio.

I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page.

As with the pending changes reviewer, it's commonly known as another basic counter-vandalism user right, I just use it as another reviewing edit request. If the edit request part above is not permitted, you might as well revoke PCR from me.

As with IAR and exceptions to this, I hope I never have to use it, if it's very obvious and no one has done a crap about it after 10–15 minutes, I might have to break the restrictions with a possible post-action discussion. Not very obvious, like you said, the helpme templates.

Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not block you or support a block of you if you IAR and removed content which later had to be revision deleted under revdel reasons 2-4. However, it makes me nervous to put that in writing because I can imagine a scenario where you good faith remove something thinking it will be revdel'ed and then it turns out not to qualify. So let me be clear again on an essential point. I in no way doubt your good faith or sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. However, your good faith efforts have, nonetheless, resulted in repeated disruptive editing. Good faith alone will not be a defense. So sure IAR in certain instances of extreme vandalism. But you better be right. If you're nervous you might not be right use the help-me templates; in most situations 15 minutes is not make or break. Even several hours is not make or break.

The spirit of this restriction is to let you lean into what you've done well and go from there. Obviously you can use templates when doing your editing but creating/changing templates is not in the spirit of content creation under what I am suggesting. So no to TPER for now. If you encounter something like what is being discussed at AN right now about a broken ref template causing problems, ping me or use a help-me so the issue can be reported rather than trying to fix the template yourself.

Pending changes and edit requests are part content creation, part administrative action. So let's go back to the spirit of the restriction as I am proposing it. In that context, it is not building off your strengths and takes us back into territory, administrative type actions, for which there is evidence of problems. My idea of talking about a loosening of the restriction in as soon as three months, rather than a more typical six months is because this kind of work could serve as a nice bridge between where we're starting and resuming full editing. So far now leave them alone. If it helps I'm happy to revoke PCR until such a time as you could use it again.

Cleaning up BARE URLs and handling COPYVIO is a standard part of copy editing so both make sense. But exercise caution. For instance, I would look askance on something like you joining/doing CopyPatrol.

I don't understand what I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. means.

I think that's everything from your response. Let me know if I missed something or you have further questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. Simpily, questions and clarification regarding the MOS.

Please revoke PCR before I "accidentally" use it.

I've seen the revision deleteable edits. I've gone on an edit war with a vandal, I've seen this. They were RD2ed, I called oversight. I just found them in the AbuseLog.

Can I Log In (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking questions about the MOS is absolutely in-line with the spirit of this restriction. Proposing changes to the MOS is not. Does that help clarify. If you tell me that you agree to the restrictions as we've laid them out here, I will remove the block and revoke PCR. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Y and you are not going to see "a second wave". COVID-19 does not have a brain, I do. COVID-19 changes randomly, I can actualy change. Can I Log In (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)