User talk:Computer40/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Accusing editors and citing policies

Hello Hawkeye75, I see you have been busy contributing busily to the wikipedia. But I will state one again, I HIGHLY recommend you do not accuse of editors of violating one of the many policies on wikipedia, some of which can contradict each other, such as you did with your edit summary on Alaska Aces (ECHL). For one, I showed no ownership behavior, I edited your addition to try to match with the WP:PROSELINE format (which you are right, that article needs work in that regard so I will add it to my ever growing list of off-season articles to clean up). I made 0 reverts to that page except when it is too soon, unverified, or incorrect. If it looks like ownership, it is only because I watch all minor league team pages, so I frequently edit them. But doesn't mean all valuable content comes from me, and is in fact usually not from me, I just clean.

You could say I am a wikihound, but only because I see suspicious edits, check their edits, and clean them if needed. "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes" (from WP:HOUND) is why I do this. I am simply trying to teach, not harass. You seem interested in editing and I am only trying to help you. But your accusations irk me and it appears that I am not first according to your talk page.

So due to your use of improperly citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I am kindly asking you to refrain from doing so. It will only make you look bad in the end. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You're the only person I've accused since being unblocked. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Spacing of the badges on your user page.

I noticed the comment on your user page regarding the spacing of the badges. I propose this fix:

{{Div col|colwidth=7em|content=

{{Registered Editor}}

{{Novice Editor}}

}}

You can alter the spacing by changing colwidth. Lmbro (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, however it when I put it in edit preview it was "cut in half" to describe it. You can try to fix it if you want. Thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't edit you page unfortunately. However, it seemed correct when I previewed it. If I put it here it looks like this:

This user is a
Registered Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

This editor is a
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Lmbro (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD Nominations

Hello. Please avoid nominating articles at AfD, without giving any rationale for deletion as you did here. They are likely to be closed per Speedy Keep criteria 1. Thanks! TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I re-nominated them with a rationale. Hawkeye75 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN

"Gyan Singh is an Indian politician from the state of Madhya Pradesh. He was first elected to Lok Sabha in 1996 General Election." That enough not just to prevent speedy, but to pass AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hawkeye75 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

To refresh your memory, Hawkeye7 (Incidentally, I see your username has come up again- I'll chime in below), DGG was referring to this. Happy editing! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Note

There's an active and more-tenured editor that you by the name of Hawkeye7. You might have to change your username. :( J947^(c) 05:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Anna Frodesiak as someone active here at this talk page. J947^(c) 05:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's start with hearing what User:Hawkeye7 thinks about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think your only the second person who has had a problem with this. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any confusion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In the role of innocent bystander, and having checked out this talk page and this account's general editing history, I think it's safe to say that no-one will ever confuse the two editors :) Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: That was quite rude and childish. You might want to look up the five pillars of Wikipedia, or more specifically read this article about civility. Per WP:NOBAN, stay away from my talk page in the future. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean, Hawkeye75? Also, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I confused the two when looking at an AfD and wondering whether Hawkeye7 had changed his name, or possibly even changed his signature and accidentally typing '5'. That's what brought me here. J947^(c) 04:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@J947:Hawkeye75 is also quite active here and their contributions don't seem to overlap with HE7's. 75's contributions are of no lesser value just because they haven't been here as lone. I'd suggest you check out [[wp:nvc|this essay about vested contributors. Besides it isn't Hawkeye75 fault that other people get confused.--Adam in MO Talk 02:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:IMPERSONATOR: Usernames that are very similar to existing ones cannot be registered normally – but if you do want to use one, you may request its creation at Wikipedia:Request an account. Usernames that are similar only to unused or inactive accounts should not be a problem. Special:CentralAuth can be used to check for such usernames. The program that checks for similarity is a bit over-sensitive—if the username is different enough as to prevent other people from confusing the two users, the request should be approved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Water parks and water rides

I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Water parks and water rides, any and all input appreciated. 82.132.242.204 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Hi. I have some questions and an observation about some of your recent edits and reverts:

You added a level-4 "disruptive editing" warning template to my user talk page[1] without any prior discussion or warnings, and gave no details or examples. Please can you explain?

You reverted one of my edits[2] with the summary "not a ride type, gf". What does 'gf' mean?

You reverted another of my edits[3] with the summary "No explanation, new account has made ~100 edits within a day with no discussion". However, the edit you reverted[4] had the summary "Redirected page to List of amusement rides#SBNO". I had previously added "Standing but not operating (SBNO)" to the target article twice, first[5] with the summary "+SBNO", which you reverted, and then again[6] with the summary "Undid revision 806800063 by Hawkeye75 (talk) - Standing but not operating redirects to here", which you also reverted. Prior to my edit, Standing but not operating was a redirect to List of defunct amusement parks, which has no explanation of the term and would obviously not be a suitable place for such an explanation, and after my edit it redirected to an appropriate article with a referenced explanation. How were my edit summaries insufficient, and how do you justify these reverts?

Do you feel there is a problem with what you describe as a 'new account' making ~100 constructive edits, almost all with edit summaries?

Also, you reverted several of my edits and marked your reverts as 'minor'. WP:Minor suggests that Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule - I hope this is a helpful observation.

Please can you reply here, to keep the discussion on one page. Thanks. 2001:E68:542E:805D:8C57:F442:F6F9:83E8 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet because you have used 2 different IP's that were created in the last 2 days? There are probably more than that. Why are you changin all the SBNO? There was no discussion on this and you have changed 100+ pages with it involved. Make an account and start a discussion, or I will be posting on ANSP for suspicion of sockpuppetry. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I posted this 5 minutes ago and you have made 3 edits since then. I assume you are ignoring me and with that I will start an ANSP investigation. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"Why are you changin all the SBNO? There was no discussion on this" - didn't you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing but not operating, and follow the link there to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles, before you reverted my edit to the Standing but not operating redirect? 2001:E68:542E:805D:8C57:F442:F6F9:83E8 (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me change that, there was actually no consensus before the discussion was closed, so there is no valid proof that it should be changed. Start a discussion and stop using an IP account. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Which discussion? Link please. 2001:E68:542E:805D:8C57:F442:F6F9:83E8 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/2001:E68:542E:805D:96D:E06A:F27F:4424 has now closed. 2001:E68:542E:805D:8C57:F442:F6F9:83E8 (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye: I was also alarmed by the sudden change of more than 100 pages by an IP user with no account, but I did look into it, and the edits are legitimate. The user did offer an explanation for each edit. According to this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing but not operating, SBNO has been removed from the Wikipedia lexicon. Apparently this discussion took place back in July. I was not aware of the discussion at the time or I would have weighed in. As a published author, I have used the term SBNO, and I know several other authors who also use the term. It is not simply an RCDB.com term as one user had suggested but was actually coined in the 1970s by Robert Cartmel, an author who used to write for the New York Times. However, the decision has been made, and I really don't have a problem with it. The terms closed and demolished can replace SBNO. If a coaster has closed I guess we will let the reader assume it is still standing until it reopens or is marked as demolished.—JlACEer (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the discussion was made because the discussion you linked was about an article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That page has the discussion. Different users voiced their opinion on whether or not the page, Standing but not operating, should be deleted. The final item shows that a decision was made to redirect the page to List of defunct amusement parks, which really makes no sense as closed rides can occur at open amusement parks, but that was the decision made. So now all the articles that have links to the page SBNO are no longer valid. That is why this IP user is changing "SBNO" to "closed."

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing but not operating

I agree with JlACEer's assessment. Any article with a link to the deleted SBNO article should have that link removed. It appears that the anonymous editor is following through on that. As for the various redirects (SBNO, Standing but not operating, Standing But Not Operating, etc.), they should all probably point to a better location. However, since it was decided in an AfD, a follow-up discussion should probably be had before making further changes. Having it at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks would be a decent location to further hash that out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Hawkeye,
Please see Talk:3 ft gauge railways#Vandalism?.
Peter Horn User talk 19:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please explain

At Talk:3 ft gauge railways#Vandalism you said "I think he user needs to be blocked as well."

Why do you think that?

Please reply here to keep conversation on one page. Thanks. 210.187.205.198 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything

@Oshwah: Yeah I just want everything removed, but please don't remove the previous edits in the rare case I get unblocked. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please confirm: You would like your user page blanked? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well if it's reversible, then yes. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It just clears everything from the page. The history and all previous revisions are available to the public. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I wanted, I just don't want the thing that what happens to the edits with vandals or whatever where if they make an obscene edit summary, then it gets deleted or something. Anyhow, yes please go ahead. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Twisted Timbers Concept Art.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Twisted Timbers Concept Art.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Appeal at AN

See: [7]. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Corkscrew Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Iron Dragon Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

October 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to discuss your edits and a battleground mentality; compare WP:ANI#Hawkeye75.

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: .  Huon (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Computer40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi there. I would like to make a plead to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I originally got banned for having a battleground mentality and harassing other users. I felt like I put a lot of effort into editing different articles and I got mad when someone either reverted or removed my edits. It was very frustrating seeing the work disappear. I failed to look at both sides of why my edits were removed. If I do get unblocked and me edits are reverted, I will either let it be or start a civil discussion on the article talk page. Another reason why I originally got blocked was my anger towards IP users. I was angry that the same person could have different IP accounts and it was hard to tell who was who. I read over some of the Wikipedia articles and learned more about dynamic IP's and other stuff. After getting blocked, I selfishly made a sockpuppet. I did this because I really wanted to edit Wikipedia. That is the truth. It was very frustrating to see mistakes in the encyclopedia and not be able to fix them. It was a very poor decision. I then did a lot of thinking and decided to take the standard offer. During the 6 months that I was blocked, I did not sockpuppet and thought about my actions. I learnt that with the power of editing comes responsibility as well. I will not continue my old habits and I hope to make positive edits in the future. I hope I get the chance to contribute to Wikipedia again. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've unblocked based on community consensus at AN, and renamed based on our discussion here. Please remember to also change your signature. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser note for reviewing admin: I see no evidence of socking since User:JudgeJake40, and the user has one of the stickiest IPs I've seen in a while so any evasion would be fairly evident.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ponyo: To clarify, where does that leave an edit such as this; does it imply an attempt to get a sock unblocked (bad) or to mirror what's being appealed here (not, I suppose, so bad)? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: The JudgeJake account was clearly tagged as a confirmed sock; I would assume that's the account Hawkeye wanted to move forward with, until Yamla explained the request needed to come from this account, as opposed to an attempt at deception. To be honest, I would prefer the JudgeJake40 account be unblocked with a clear userpage link to this account should an unblock be granted; there was significant username concerns raised at one point due to the similarity to prolific contributor User:Hawkeye7.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification—yes, I remember the username issue, that would be a good idea. And anything with "Judge" in the title is always gonna be cool  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am willing to copy this appeal to be discussed by the community at WP:AN, which I feel necessary since you have had multiple blocks that resulted from noticeboard reports. Per Ponyo's concerns, which I agree with, I would lay out as a condition for copying this over that you choose a new username and agree to be renamed if you are unblocked (which I think would be better to preserve the current block log than switching accounts.) If you can suggest a new username that is free (check here), ping me and I will copy your appeal to AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: My username suggestion is Sockeye75. Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's try again, and this time stay away from things that remotely resembles "keye7". I'm still willing to copy this to AN for you, but if the next message here isn't a serious rename suggestion, I'd be inclined to just decline the request above. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Computer40 Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I came to this page to ask this editor to change their signature to show their username per signature guidelines, only to find that you reminded them to do that 4 days ago.[8] Apparently they didn't hear you,[9] so perhaps you could repeat the reminder, louder this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure: do it or be blocked again. Renaming was part of the unblock conditions, I mentioned it in the unblock template, and it is necessary to avoid confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No need to be so pushy. Truly didn't see that that was part of the unblock ruling, but I did it anyways. The unblocking didn't give me a notification (which I usually use to see edits). Computer40 «»(talk) 06:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Mindbender Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Walt Disney World Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Formatting disputes and other issues

Keep in mind that on different screen resolutions, column widths can change dramatically making some look squeezed unnecessarily. What I've done in the Cedar Point article is attempt to alleviate that problem by allowing the "Description" column to resize as needed, but anchoring the size of the "Ride" and "Year" columns. So regardless of the screen size, those two will always take up the same amount of space. I'm not sure why you disagree with this, but I see you've been through the ringer a couple times with blocks and a discussion at ANI. I suggest you worry less about minor formatting issues, as they're just not worth the time and effort to argue over, unless of course you can provide a sensible justification behind your changes. So far, I haven't seen one.

You've recently rejoined the fray, and already you're making mass changes to various articles that are sure to catch the ire of other editors watching those articles. Are you sure this is the path you want to continue to take? You seem to be too focused on table formatting, which can be a subjective position that's hard to defend. After taking a stab in a particular article and getting reverted, I suggest you move on to another or find another contribution that would be more likely to stick. There's plenty of other things to cleanup in these articles that no one would get in the way of (add refs, find new facts, remove WP:OR, etc.). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there any MoS that says the names shouldn't take more than one line. Looks quite odd. Computer40 «»(talk) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a policy or guideline to cover common sense. Look closely at the version you created. You'll notice Magnum XL-200 wraps to the next line following "XL-". Why are you defending that? If anything looks odd, that does. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

So you didn't respond above, and now we're on to the next issue. Are you going to be willing to back up your edits with discussion? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are. This last edit you keep making is removing an {{asof}} statement that exists for good reason. When a new coaster opens or gets refurbished at Cedar Point, which happens almost yearly at that park, random drive-by editors disruptively change the number of coasters following the announcement. Having the date there shows that until the new ride opens, the number of coasters should remain unchanged. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That change was reverted 1, 2, 3 times without any reasoning in the edit summary. Thankfully you explained it now. Computer40 «»(talk) 06:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It works both ways. There was also no explanation given for the removal here (1), here (2), or here (3).

As an FYI, that last example you gave was accidental. When I used Twinkle to do this revert, I mistakenly reverted your previous edit as well. I just think that particular edit kept getting lumped in with other changes and flew under the radar each time. By the way, it looks like another editor restored the "As of", so glad to hear there aren't any issues. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Magnum XL-200 Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Great Wolf Lodge Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Great Wolf Lodge Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Brawl Stars Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brawl Stars Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brawl Stars Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walt Disney World Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walt Disney World Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walt Disney World Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walt Disney World Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop reverting edits on Brawl Stars

I am requesting for you to stop reverting my edits on Brawl Stars. The edit I made is correct and up to date. Make sure you are aware of the information on Brawl Stars before reverting edits. Edipio (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source that that is the logo? If not, it should be removed. A header on a twitter page does not make it the logo. Even if it is the logo, the background should be transparent. I see your quite new on Wikipedia, next time please start a discussion on the article talk page. Computer40 «»(talk) 02:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything, but you are using words like "my edits" and on your user page you say you "take pride of every edit." If you have time I would suggest you read WP:OWN. Most of the project pages are interesting and maybe you would find them to be helpful, like I once did. Cheers. Computer40 «»(talk) 02:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Brawl Stars Transparent Background.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walt Disney World Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walt Disney World Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature must link to your account per WP:SIGLINK. I see the displayed name is your current username but please change the linked name. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sig fix

Your use of <font>...</font>, an element that hasn't existed in HTML for over a decade, causes WP:LINT problems. I.e., it pollutes every page you sign with bogus markup, which is something others will have to cleanup later as we migrate to pure HTML5. Please fix this; it's super easy! Just replace:

• <span style="background:#0E155D;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px"> [[User:Hawkeye75|<span style="color:#fff">Computer40</span>]] <font size="4" color="red">«»</font>[[User talk:Hawkeye75|<span style="color:#fff">(talk)</span>]]</span>
• Computer40 «»(talk)

with:

• <span style="background:#0E155D;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px"> [[User:Computer40|<span style="color:#fff">Computer40</span>]] <span style="font-size:150%;color:red">«»</span>[[User talk:Computer40|<span style="color:#fff">(talk)</span>]]</span>
• Computer40 «»(talk)

Better yet, this version:

• <span style="background:#0E155D;padding:0.1em 0.9em;font-size:0.88em"> [[User:Computer40|<span style="color:#fff">Computer40</span>]] <span style="font-size:150%;color:red">«»</span>[[User talk:Computer40|<span style="color:#fff">(talk)</span>]]</span>
• Computer40 «»(talk)

will also get rid of the hard-coded font point size so that it adjusts to monitor resolution, etc. You might need to tweak the values very slightly.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: Weirdly, the one you're using appears to have someone else's user name in it, User:Hawkeye75, which is not a valid username. I've fixed that above in my two snippets of sample code. The Hawkeye75 username redirects to you, but having this stated to be your real user name causes annoying errors to result from the {{Ping}} system if people try to use it, and it must be fixed. I also see PrimeHunter mentioned this as a username policy violation, above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

PPS – instructions, in case you don't recall where the sig stuff is: Top-right, there's a menu option called "Preferences". Click that, and the first page you get has several sections. The third is "Signature". Just delete your existing sig from the text-entry box there, and copy-paste this in its place:

<span style="background:#0E155D;padding:0.1em 0.9em;font-size:0.88em"> [[User:Hawkeye75|<span style="color:#fff">Computer40</span>]] <span style="font-size:150%;color:red">«»</span>[[User talk:Computer40|<span style="color:#fff">(talk)</span>]]</span>

Then click "Save" at the bottom of that preferences page, and that'll fix it. I've tested it, and this code will fix within the max sig size limit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I see you did change User talk:Hawkeye75 to User talk:Computer40 but please also change User:Hawkeye75 to User:Computer40 as above. "talk" in the code is unlinked but that is because it would have linked to the page itself. It will work on other pages. If you want people to know you were Hawkeye75 earlier then you can say so on your current user page. A signature should only have links to your current name. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I'm not going to do that as it's not required. @SMcCandlish: You falsely reported me over at WPAN and if you're going to post here in the future, refrain from making test edits because it clogs up people's email notifications. Computer40 «»(talk) 22:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I very correctly reported you to WP:UAA (since you've been administratively told to fix this sig and are refusing to do so even still, which is likely to get you blocked), not to WP:AN. If you were not doing weird and misleading stuff with your sig, multiple passes at trying to fix it would not have been needed; the annoyance is of your own ultimate making. The fact that you're trying to WP:WIKILAWYER your way out of compliance is a bad sign, and I predict that this is not going to end well, especially given the history of nearly nothing but warnings, blocks, bans, and pointless disputes, one after another, at both of your talk pages. I came here in friendly terms and without any prejudice to make a simple and very easy request, which anyone else would comply without without drama. Our constructive editors are not here to cause problems or to resist doing things that cause problems when it costs them nothing to stop doing them. I then tried to make resolving the matter as easy for you as possible with code and instructions. You're now digging your own hole and acting as if everyone is your "enemy". See first law of holes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikilawyer is an extremely dumb project page - how are people supposed to explain their reasoning behind their actions?? Besides it's not a policy, it's an action. I was told to fix my signature to comply with WP:SIGLINK and I did. When I was unblocked I said that I would take advice from other editors. That does not mean that I have to do something just because someone suggests it. Computer40 «»(talk) 05:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your last unblock request said "I was angry that the same person could have different IP accounts and it was hard to tell who was who." Now you are making it hard to tell who made a signed edit, something that should be trivial. Users who see your source signature or hover over Computer40 will assume the edit was made by a user called Hawkeye75 and not Computer40. If they discover there is no Hawkeye75 they are likely to waste time figuring out what is going on. A redirect does not promise the redirect target made the edit so now they may go through contributions to work it out. If they link User:Hawkeye75 to notify you then you don't get notified. WP:Signature forgery says: "Editing the code of your signature to link it to another editor's user page is not permitted." A literal reading may claim it doesn't cover your case but it's still confusing and time wasting. WP:SIG#DL is about disruptive links in general and could also be applied. Please just fix it to show willingness to communicate with others and not make completely unnecessary obstacles. Wikipedia does not make explicit rules against every annoying thing a user may do but if it was common to refuse to remove a link to an old name in a signature then I'm sure it would have been added to WP:SIG. I have asked many to fix it and they always did. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Frontier City Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar Lantry

To end this editing war with you on Big Brother 20 (U.S.), here is what I'm trying to say in my reverts: on the article, all of the HouseGuests are referred to by their last name unless it is the first time their name has been brought up. Rockstar's last name is Lantry. "Rockstar" is only her nickname and would only be used in place of her real name (Angela). -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the rest of the article. Rockstar is used everywhere, as well as Swaggy C. Computer40 «»(talk) 08:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow nevermind, I made a mistake. My apologies. Computer40 «»(talk) 08:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of water parks in the Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

So you're only gonna post this on my page and not the other guy who is edit waring? Computer40 «»(talk) 01:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Computer40, I note that you're obviously on very thin ice already - I would suggest not edit warring, especially to remove sourced content that has already been discussed on the talk page. I would also not suggest inserting what appears to be original research, which, per John from Idegon's comment "I'd strongly suggest minimally a TBAN from amusement parks, reality TV and hockey for at least three months be imposed as a condition, just to see if he is capable of writing from sources.", appears to be continuing your past problems; I would recommend writing from sources as John says, per our core content policies.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your respectful comment. I will keep that in mind. Computer40 «»(talk) 18:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

It is hard to believe that you took the comment to keep your suggestion about how Calton should manage their talk page to yourself and think it applies to suggestions on how to improve an article. ~ GB fan 01:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Caution about edit warring

Remember that while WP:3RR is a brightline, you can still be edit warring without actually doing 3 reverts in 24 hours. Your pattern of edit behaviour on It's OK to be white could be construed as edit warring. I would strongly recommend that you listen to the people who have spoken with you at talk about your concerns and build consensus rather than persisting with your edit behaviour on that article. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The consensus result on the talk page discussion which I participated in was to keep it the same. I haven't made any changes since. Computer40 «»(talk) 17:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this editor hasn't changed that much

@Huon, Euryalus, and Anna Frodesiak: I've been looking at this editor's recent edits and if possible I'd appreciate your views as to whether their behavior is substantially different now to the behavior that led to their blocks. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I did anything wrong. There were so many people in against me in the noticeboard. People accused me of lying, of having nasi viewpoints. One user even said they want to keep racist viewpoints off wikipedia which I thought NPOV was about. The close per request quote is basically what closed the discussion :"Neutrality does not mean neutrality between racism and anti-racism, but representing views based on their degree of support in reliable sources." I read NPOV and I never picked up on that. That was one of my points in the discussion and clearly it's not valid. Maybe it needs to be written into NPOV. Computer40 «»(talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi yes, I am one of the two editors who said to you that they would work to avoid mainstreaming racist views on Wikipedia. That is within keeping of the WP:NPOV mission truth be told, especially as racist views are universally pseudo-scientific or worse. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't adhere to social norms, that's why different viewpoints are important. Like I said before, some things aren't even racist, when people think they are. Someone could think it's ok to be white is racist, while others could think it's not. Keeping "racist" viewpoints off wikipedia is breaking WP:CENSORED. Computer40 «»(talk) 18:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Wikipedia identifying racist beliefs and noting that they're racist, tied to would-be genocides, etc. As I mentioned before, racist beliefs are pseudoscience or worse, and Wikipedia actually has a very explicit policy on that WP:FRINGE - and trust me, fringe POV pushers have been indeffed for far less than advocating genocide. That said, if Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia for everyone, there's no place for Nazi editors on Wikipedia as there is no place for Nazis in this world. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It's me. I'm back.

First, please do not try to convince me of things here, or debate with me. This is not a discussion. I've planted a lot of patient keystrokes over this matter with you above.

You wrote: "...edits are reverted, I will either let it be or start a civil discussion...I will not continue my old habits..."

Some may think you are over the line in terms of breaching that. Looking at your recent edits, you may be close, you may be over, I have not made up my mind. But I am watching.

You waited six months. You like editing here. You know, if you get blocked again, that will be it for you and Wikipedia forever. You want to influence articles? Being here (legitimately) and using your head is the only avenue. You know that.

So, stay away from that danger line, well away from it. Flirting with that line only works in movies. Edit gently and know when to shrug your shoulders and walk. You can choose how to be. Learn to accept an article version that is not what you want. Think, oh well, life goes on. Life is crazy. I can't control everything. Be at rest in chaos. Relax. Feel the stress melting away. The new you.....

I'll be watching. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I'd suggest Computer40 to stay away from controversial topic areas including the article "It's okay to be white" for a while; just create articles or expand an article based on sourcing or even do gnoming or some other uncontroversial edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Just throwing in a comment from the peanut gallery regarding this edit summary: WP:BRD is, if not mandatory, reaaalllly good advise that should be treated as mandatory in all but the most exceptional circumstances. You can avoid a ton of problems by following it. Nblund ^talk 16:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

With edits like this (related to this exchange and this comment) or this comment following a discussion where multiple editors had already agreed that the lead was neutral and none suggested that something was missing, I have to wonder whether Computer40 has some competence issues or whether this is a mix of trolling and wikilawyering. The impression that I get is that Computer40 treats Wikipedia as a game to be won by exploiting the rules or by using others' comments against them, "gotcha" style. I'm also concerned by the edit summary highlighted by Nblund above which goes against the assurances Computer40 made in their unblock request. Anna Frodesiak, would you object if I reinstate the block? Do you think there's a reasonable chance for collaborative behaviour if we give yet another chance? Huon (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if he avoids crossing the line, we do not want to sit here and watch while he edits in the red zone, so no objections.

However, at this point, we could simply prohibit him from editing in that zone. I'm not sure if that would work, considering that discussion is pretty much inevitable, and then disagreement may follow. Then again, look at my pre-admin years. I didn't have conflicts with others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: belated thanks for the ping. A review of recent edits indicates exactly the same problems re interpreting policy. Huon, random third opinion that reinstating the block would be entirely justified. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A safe place to edit

It looks like you are heading for the permanent end of your time at Wikipedia based solely on your past edits.

Do you have anything to suggest in terms of editing completely out of the red zone, i.e. zero controversy, zero debate, zero hot articles and hot content and fiery debate over it, etc? There are a lot of quiet editors here who slave away out of sight, making species stubs, finding Commons images for articles, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, lest you try and turn Anna Frodesiak's words against her: "Zero debate" wouldn't mean "zero use of talk pages". After all, WP:BRD is a thing, and if anything, I see too little willingness to resolve disputes via discussion on talk pages, not too much. I'll also note that this is not an issue limited to particularly controversial articles; there has been edit-warring over an amusement park (with the same "others should discuss, not me" attitude) and the same fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV at Talk:Big Brother 20 (U.S.)#Controversy and criticism section including Rockstar. In light of these persistent problems and the other admins' opinions expressed in the section above I have reinstated the block. Huon (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NEW HULK COASTER.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NEW HULK COASTER.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brawl Stars Transparent Background.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brawl Stars Transparent Background.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)