Lyrda

Archives: 20170218 20170302

Speedy Deletion

Your article has been recommended for speedy deletion because it is inappropriate description and criticism of a child. An admin will decide whether to delete it or not. If it is deleted I suggest you rewrite it and resubmit at AFC. A speedy tag is not allowed to be removed by the article creator, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Check the history, I am not the article's creator. Not that it matters, you have no case. There is nothing inappropriate on the page. The criticism is not of the child but of her parents, and the rebuttal is included with due weight. Both criticism and rebuttal are well-sourced and common knowledge. Lyrda (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Continued removal of the speedy tag will result in a block Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Restoring a blanked page is not vandalism, blanking the page is. Lyrda (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

See above. I have reported your behaviour. Lyrda (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: the user has been corrected, and the page has been restored. Lyrda (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Russian Bride

Your recent editing history at Draft:The Russian Bride shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with the obvious hucksterism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? Lyrda (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hucksterism --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be you, then. You're the one editwarring on someone else's draft page, for no other reason than to bully another editor. Lyrda (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, no bullying. You're not playing by the rules, and you're not here to improve the encyclopedia--you're only here to promote a child model, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least your purpose is clear. This would be a good time for you to withdraw. Lyrda (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is your purpose? You get more leeway in draft space but we won't allow it to be used as a staging area for promotions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a stage for war, either. I suggest you judge my contributions on their merits, as you should do with all users. Lyrda (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion on article talk page [1]. My advice: edit something else for a while, something you are interested in, something where you have an expertise. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am actually considering closing this account and starting over, to get rid of the stalkers. With all this hatred and aggression directed at me, I no longer feel safe. Lyrda (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you should check Wikipedia:Clean start and never edit these two pages in the future. If you do, that can be viewed as a violation of WP:SOCK. And I would not say much about aggression per "get rid of the log in your own eye". My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not a very optimistic policy, basically promising that harassment will quickly start anew. I must say that I am very disappointed by the hostile atmosphere on Wikipedia in general. Lyrda (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a little essay about it. However, I do not think there was any harassment. Edit something non-controversial where you are personally not involved too much, and everything will be a lot easier. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a hobby for me. I edit topics that I care about (not: that I am involved in, I write about those on websites), so people can find reliable information on those specific topics. I'm not interested in random other topics. Good essay though, especially point 4. Lyrda (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

So, what exactly do you care about? Are you interested in the subject of modeling? Me too. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Acting more than modelling, but mostly the connection between the two. Lyrda (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

All right. That's a lot of pages to edit. Do it, and people will not think that you have a COI related to the subjects of these two pages. But I guess you are probably just a fan, which is not necessarily a bad thing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just one of more than 6 million fans. :)

Yes, there is a lot to do, like the article Child model which is in very poor shape. Lyrda (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, but then you should provide a more clear response on WP:COINB. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Admins

You do realize that Neil is an admin, right? If he tells you to stop doing something, you should stop. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Admins are normal users trusted with certain tools. They are not the boss of other editors. Lyrda (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Expect the boomerang to hit you in the face. Lyrda (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Calabasas, California

Regarding this edit, which accompanied your talk page comments at Talk:Calabasas, California. Please take a moment to read do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Also, threatening to report everyone who disagrees with your edits is very inappropriate. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

One tendentious editor, already warned by others to stop stalking me, does not make 'everyone'. You might want to take a good look at your own editing behaviour instead. This bandwagoning needs to stop. Lyrda (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My own edits? Lyrda, how unnecessarily hurtful. No editor in the history of Wikipedia has added more love, love, love, love, love than I have. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Pfah. My love for Kristina surpasses everything. Lyrda (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Notable people

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Calabasas, California.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You are removing people from the notable people section on your uncited claim that they live elsewhere. It is hard to believe this is anything but WP:POINT, especially since you are not adding them to what you contend is the appropriate articles. Rather than throw a temper tantrum, discuss at the article talk page, support your arguements with reliable sources and realize you may not prevail. That's how Wikipedia works. John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

May I point you to the talk page of the article, Talk:Calabasas. I did not add the people to the Hidden Hills, California page because they are already there, with references. Please stop adding random warnings to user talkpages. Lyrda (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Vocabulary

Hmm. If you need a fool like me to tell you that "universally accessible" is misleading or false English, then I'm probably not the one whose vocabulary falls short. But as a die-hard liberal I prefer to look at the glass as half-full: hey! you learned how to use the word "public"! On another note--if you want to stay around, try to keep your personal attacks out of edit summaries; they're there to stay, and they will make you look bad for years to come. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you could stop stalking me and making destructive edits. Lyrda (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm an admin. It's my job to look into problematic editors. Also, please see the warning for edit warring that NeilN left you, above--you're still doing it. And don't say stuff like "per policy" unless you are actually following policy. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You're the problematic editor, destroying thousands of articles because you think everything that is positive is promotion, running to your fellow admins when someone dares to protest. Lyrda (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's see.

• I have created two articles. They are both still here, one in main space, one in draft space.
• I have edited 14 other articles (and commented on several more). Virtually all my edits still stand, and various users commended me for them.
• I have been stalked by and suffered dozens of threats and personal attacks from users that lost their battle to keep my article from main space, who initiated random edit wars on pages that they are not remotely interested in. I opened discussions on the article talk pages while they would not. I sought and gained consensus. They were corrected and admonished by other users.
• However, two of my stalkers are admins, so naturally I must be eliminated. How dare I improve the encyclopedia and stand up to their abuse!

Does this seem a fair summary to you? Lyrda (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But never mind. You are all so completely derailed, you're probably doing me a favor. Lyrda (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the block seems to be an act of mercy. You behaved as if you actually wanted to be blocked. This is understandable, given your frustration. I have seen it a number of times. I wish you more happiness and success in real life! My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Frustrated, yes. Hurt, insulted, and all that. But most of all I am scared. I have seen this much blind hatred only one time before, in a pro-Trump demonstration. Lyrda (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Lyrda, just a tip here. The only thing you are allowed to do on your talk page when blocked is request an unblock. General bitching about how poorly you've been treated will not only not get you unblocked, it will most likely get your access to this page revoked too. John from Idegon (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have revoked your talk page access after phony claims of rape. You are not being oppressed, and while the Trump maneuver is cute, it's just rhetorical hogwash. No one here hates you, though some think your excessive interest in a young girl is creepy. If you can conceive of a reason for why you should be unblocked, you can try the procedure outlined in Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism!?

Just for information so is Lyrda an established, productive and well regarded user on svwp. I can sympathize with the way he/she reacted to the way he/she was treated here on enwp. The work environment here is much harsher than on svwp and that is the main reason I don't contribute to enwp. /Esquilo (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: a notification.

Your draft article, Draft:The Russian Bride

Hello, Lyrda. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Russian Bride".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)