User talk:Icaldonta

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Hi there, I had this account for years, I didn't know that contribution history was public until recently. In an attempt to mask this, I added '-' on a load of random pages and then removed it. Wikipedia picked this up as vandalism, though this wasn't my intention at all. I would then use different accounts for all of my different interests, hence the sockpuppeting. I never meant for any of this to happen. Please consider my account for unblock. I have a lot of history of constructive edits.

Decline reason:

What you are describing is vandalism. Your claim to set up multiple accounts, one for each interest, is bizarre. I can't tell if you are trolling with that excuse or if you really believe us to expect that's a reasonable thing to do. Yamla (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my unblock request. I understand that using multiple accounts like this is unconventional, though please understand my rationale. Recently, I have taken my online privacy very seriously, which includes my digital footprint. The rationale behind using multiple accounts stems from the concern that if people are aware of my individual interests on the same account, they will be able to trace back all of the interests (such as edits to places in town, for example) and find out my identity. I did not know that contribution history was public until recently, so using multiple accounts was purely a measure to attempt to protect my privacy in this sense. If this is a cause for concern, I am happy to revert to using the singular account again. Please understand that it was purely a cursory measure that I was taking. I would like to highlight that the response above does not take into consideration the many years of constructive edits across my accounts, which I would welcome an administrator to view. I fully accept that editing random pages with '-' and instantly removing them to mask the first few pages of my contribution history was wrong, and I was cease to do this ever again going forward and apologise for doing it in the first place. Please review the constructive history across my accounts, and I would really appreciate it if at least one of my accounts is made available for editing again. Many thanks. Icaldonta (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for taking the time to review my unblock request again, in addition to the comments made above, I completely understand what I have been blocked for. I accept my mistake and I will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia should I be unblocked again and I will make useful contributions. Since my block, I have made a list of articles that I would like to improve. I understand the error of my ways and I am hoping to return to Wikipedia where I will be constructive going forward.

Decline reason:

Rephrasing the instructions back at us is not convincing. If you understand why you were blocked, then explain it instead of saying "trust me, bro, I know the answer to this question". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

In the most respectful way, I hope you can understand that the appeal comment on the October 2023 unblock request from UtherSRG used the phrase "does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons". This phrase using the word "or" does not specifically clarify what is being misunderstood, and comes across to me as vague. I hope you understand that for me to convince you, I need to understand what "inadequate for other reasons" specifically means, and what is not being understood. In addition to my comments made above, following my ban, I have read Wikipedia's policies regarding sock-puppeting and fully understand Wikipedia's rationale as to why this is not permitted. I have also read Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism as well. I believe I have established that I did not know I was engaging in vandalism at the time, but on reflection I now fully understand and will not engage in this behaviour going forward. I can confidently say the same regarding the sock-puppeting. I also encourage whoever is reviewing this to view my years and years of constructive edits prior to the block. I am very happy to add further clarification, but for this to happen please let me know what you are not understanding, if the October 2023 appeal and subsequent half of this appeal request has not addressed this. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I value clarity and conciseness myself. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

Request reason:

I want to make clear that the reason for my block was justified, as I fully accept that I engaged in Vandalism. From reviewing the Vandalism page (in full), I have since learned about Sandbox. This was the appropriate place for my edits live the one I was blocked for, and not on live articles, therefore I know now I can use this going forward. In addition to this, I have also reviewed Sockpuppeting. I completely accept why this is not allowed on Wikipedia, that my other accounts can remain blocked, going forward I will solely use the one 'icaldonta' account. The use of multiple accounts was purely for my benefit in terms of segregating my edits, and was in no way intended to deceive Wikipedia. I am perfectly happy to revert to just 'icaldonta'. The constructive edits I wish to engage in going forward are mainly business-related which is one of my interests.

Accept reason:

Per talk. You are welcome. And, welcome back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Widr: Meh. OK, is it OK to unblock?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'd be very careful about edits in the sandbox, or even your user sandbox. It is intended for practice edits only.

Ok. Widr (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, and note taken from Deepfriedokra regarding sandbox Icaldonta (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Courts (brand)

added a link pointing to St. Vincent

Toy Biz

added a link pointing to New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Maison Blanc

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Maison Blanc, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doug Putman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fopp.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on EG Group

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page EG Group, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on HMV

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page HMV, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Poundstretcherlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Poundstretcherlogo.jpg. 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. –Davey2010^Talk 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Bunny moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Hungry Bunny. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CreamyP (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Motor Fuel Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JET.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Icaldonta. Thank you for your work on Park Garage Group. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This is clearly written two-sentence stub with 6 references (5 independent of the source) that is a good starting stub from which a fleshed-out article can develop. Adding more, even from the existing sources, would be a good way to develop it.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Hungry Bunny

Hello, Icaldonta. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hungry Bunny, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunrise Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fopp.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hungry Bunny

Hello, Icaldonta. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hungry Bunny".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on ljn

please discuss adding that info in the appropriate talk page instead of edit warring over it

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carpetright, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hi Icaldonta! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Call a General Election that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Cornish Bakehouse

Hello Icaldonta, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Cornish Bakehouse, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornish Bakehouse.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Jonathan Deamer}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Norton Group Holdings

The article Norton Group Holdings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

contents already discussed on The Range (retailer) page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about James Pringle Weavers

Hi there! Thank you for posting the article about James Pringle Weavers. UK culture is so interesting, and even what might seem minor often is very worthwhile to learn about. That makes this article definitely worth fleshing out.

As a reader of your article, I have some questions and finding the answers might improve it a little. I really hope you don't feel pestered, but the Industrial Revolution in the UK is such an interesting thing! I've searched Google and I don't see websites that talk about the company unless they're trying to flog woolens or tours.

First and foremost, I respect your privacy. Is there a way you can protect that and still tell me how you came to know about James Pringle Weavers? Do you work for them? Do you live nearby, or does everyone in the UK just know about them? I don't mean to pry; understanding how you know about them might help me figure out how to learn more about them.

James Pringle Weavers was founded in 1789. They apparently didn't sell tweed and tartan to the general public for at least 150 years or so, right? What were they doing in the interim? Where can I find information on this?

What does "rescued from administration" mean? Is that what we in the U.S. call "rescued from bankruptcy?"

So many questions, I'm embarrassing myself and hoping you don't feel harrassed... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I do not know much about it, just building The Edinburgh Woollen Mill's pages on here.

Thanks for your interest! Icaldonta (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]