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)reply
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)reply
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.
NeilNtalk to me18:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. --
NeilNtalk to me20:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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!
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 edit the submission 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.