User talk:RavenFire24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, RavenFire24, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Username[edit]

Interesting name. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess you are supposed to steal the fire and share it with worlds ?? (RavenFire24 (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

LOL[edit]

Why are you copying me LOL .. :D .. (RavenFire24 (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Baseball categories[edit]

Good morning -

I cleaned up some edits related to baseball categories, so I thought I would explain why I did that. Basically, many categories on WP have what are known as subcategories under them, and most of the time once you put an article in a subcategory, you shouldn't also put it in the broader category.

As an example, Category:Baseball pitchers shouldn't have very many articles in it, because there are good subcategories, including Category:Major League Baseball pitchers, Category:Nippon Professional Baseball pitchers, and others. In this case, the only articles under the broader Category:Baseball pitchers should be those entries where the player never made the major leagues or NPB or the Mexican or Korean leagues. Most players don't get a WP article until they make a major league like this, but there are very rare guys (Steve Chilcott is an example) who become notable because they are top prospects but then for some reason (usually injuries) they never play in the majors.

The reason we do this: The Major League Baseball pitchers subcategory has nearly 8800 articles in it, the NPB subcategory has more than 700, and the other subcategories have a few hundred as well. If we put all of those together at Category:Baseball pitchers, that category would get so large that it becomes useless. Actually right now there are a lot of articles in Category:Baseball pitchers that should be in subcategories. There are some categories (known as non-diffusing categories) where an article should be in the bigger category and the appropriate subcategory, but most baseball categories don't work like that.

If I can help you, let me know. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ::@Larry Hockett: I would Love to help. So Should I continue editing abiding with the aforementioned or should I wait for you to guide me ?? BTW Merry Christmas Mate :) (RavenFire24 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Merry PGmas and a Happy New Year[edit]

An X rating is just not appropriate at this time of year. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL (RavenFire24 (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Xmas[edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ::@Bzuk: Can I understand what are the illegitimate reasons. I have not received any warning for this block! ::@Xaosflux: ::@Wizardman: ::@Cecropia: ::@Deskana: ::@Dweller: Request you to please intervene (RavenFire24 (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure why you've pinged me and other bureaucrats. You've been blocked by a checkuser for sock puppetry. As we don't have access to the tool, we have little to say on the matter. Read the block notice carefully. It explains what you need to know. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re below. You're mistaken. Read WP:BUREAUCRATS. And read all the links in the block notification. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

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).

RavenFire24 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Your reason here I have not attempted any malicious edit. I have strictly stuck to Categorization and put in a word in one particular page called the Ananya Panday Panday Page because First of all this is confusion with spelling of the individual and Moreover the the person is well noted Both of my arguments have been removed right not. Im willing to explain my arguments again If given a chance. But I have not done any malicious edit.
 ::@Xaosflux: ::@Wizardman: ::@Cecropia: ::@Deskana: ::@Dweller: Request you to please intervene
The Reason why I am tagging bureaucrats is because they are the highest authority on Wikipedia If Im not mistaken. An gives one an assured feeling of unbiased decisions. Moreover Policies have it that I should have received a warning notifying me my mistake. Nobody did warn me. (RavenFire24 (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined, see notes below. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 26 December 2018 (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 is a checkuser block, meaning only a checkuser can review it. There are no authority figures here; bureaucrats(and checkusers and admins) simply have powers that would be irresponsible to give to all users. There is no policy requiring warnings, you are not entitled to warnings if the reason is serious enough. You do not address the reason for your block, sockpuppetry, which there is technical evidence for. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 — xaosflux Talk 13:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]