User talk:AJP426

Welcome!

Hello, AJP426, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philtranco, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santa Rosa and Laguna (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) 09:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philtranco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Super Five Transport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kapatagan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philtranco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Partas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naga City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balintawak station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgwang station

Your edit of 21:19, 19 March 2020 of Ilgwang station removed needed table closing markup (|}), causing a table tag that should be deleted lint error. I have fixed it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pohang Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bujeon Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Please review MOS:CAPS and longstanding consensus to use lowercase "station" in article titles on most rail stations. Many of the ones you moved cite (in their history) the discussion that most recently reaffirmed lowercase. If you can help put these back, that will be appreciated. I'm working on them, too. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Because most of them are caps "Station" so i decided to move the page to make a different titles. AJP426 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most station titles use lowercase; yes, even for Korean ones. Where are you getting the opposite impression? Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving Station to station in North Korea. Talk:Achasan station#Requested move 20 January 2018 is restricted to South Korean railway stations. If you want to move, open WP:requested moves. Sawol (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Hospital (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trans–Mongolian Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pechatniki railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pechatniki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verkhnie Kotly railway station

Please check the edit at Verkhnie Kotly railway station which is displaying "'Module:Adjacent stations/Moscow Railway' not found". Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: fixed AJP426 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Primorskaya Railway. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. – bradv🍁 14:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move at Trans-Siberian Railway

May I please ask you next time to open a RM first. I highly doubt that your target is compatible with WP:MOS, and in any case this was a stable name. Moving without any comments is absolutely not appropriate. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Adjacent stations/SMS

I think recent edits at Module:Adjacent stations/SMS might be responsible for "Lua error in Module:Adjacent_stations at line 420: "title" is missing from the data page" in the following. Please investigate.

Asin station • Battambang • BIT Zone station • Campus Town station • Central Park station (Incheon) • Dosim station • Giheung station • Gulbongsan station • Guseong station • Gyeongwon Line • Hogupo station • Incheon Nonhyeon station • International Business District station • Obin station • Oksu station • Pangyo station • Singal station • Sinwon station • Technopark station • Ungilsan station • Wondeok station • Yangjeong station (Namyangju) • Yangsu station

Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: since the Module:Adjacent stations/SMS is incomplete so i decide to moved the page from Module:Adjacent stations/SMS to Module:Adjacent stations/Seoul Subway to avoid this Lua error - AJP426 (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Adjacent stations/VR Group

Hey,
Save for the various heritage lines, FTIA is the sole maintainer of railways and their stations in all of Finland, and therefore VR's as well as HSL's importance in regard to the information present in the infoboxes is frankly secondary. Therefore I strongly believe that the FTIA blue should be used for all infoboxes regarding all active stations (at the very least) in the country; if we were to use VR colors as well, then logically HSL's purple should be used for stations only served by their trains too - but then what would you do for stations served by both HSL as well as VR on their own volition? (Remember that VR is a mere operator for HSL's trains; the latter is in charge for route planning, tickets, etc.) Thus in my opinion the most appropriate as well as the most neutral option for all of the heading colors of the infoboxes of Finnish railway stations is the FTIA signage blue (RAL 5002/#00387B as per [1]). Konryusui (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Wikisaurus (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per that discussion, I have removed your homosexuality userbox (GorillaWarfare summed it up quite well: WP:NPA Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors) and WP:USERPAGE (What may I not have in my user pages?... Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).). Please do not re-add it. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Armanjarrettp per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armanjarrettp. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

AJP426 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Im apologized for this happened to my works that i abuse it I try to solve this issue as a sockpuppet to show my previous name that im not pretending anymore. Im sorry for what I did AJP426 (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2020 (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. only (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2020 (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.

@GeneralNotability: and @Berean Hunter: can we discuss about it, because after i read this Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry blocks, is there any other way to unblock my account? im sorry to say because i cannot go back to my original account the real reason is my previous account name "Armanjarrettp" has been forgot my password then i moved to my second account named "AJ Pachano" then since i am fraustrated that time then i created another account and i didn't realized that is a sockpuppet i dont understand that first because i am a new user since 2017, i didn't know the rules in wikipedia that time, i didn't realize that using multiple accounts is not allowed, and now i understand why am being blocked. And now as i am "AJP426" i keep stay away what i have done before then i tag {{former account}} to my first account named "Jjpachano" that i also that i forgotten my password. Im apologize that happened that i damage the clean start. - AJP426 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this AN thread to understand that there is more to it. GorillaWarfare indicated that your account was locked but she may have just been using a figure of speech since I see that you edit on other projects and you aren't currently globally locked. Have you been editing on LGBTQ issues on other projects?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: sorry for my late reply, but i have no edits on the LGBTQ issues on other projects, im just putting myself on the userbox on my userpage that i am not satisfied about LGBTQ. - AJP426 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:I must have misread something, I could've sworn I saw the account was locked but you're correct that it doesn't appear to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AJP426, did you gain an understanding from the AN thread that this is a personal attack?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: yes i understand it - AJP426 (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

AJP426 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok i understand why i am blocked and i will not continue to cause damage or disruption. I also review the WP:GAB and discuss it that what i have done and what will learned from then. I understanding first before i make an unblock request. If my explanation was unacceptable, then we can discuss it, what else do I need to do - AJP426 (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2020 (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.

@Berean Hunter: and @Only: but since i am already abusing using multiple accounts, is there anything else what can i do to unblock my account? and to avoid this happen? - AJP426 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly familiar with socking policy, and acknowledge the block is likely in line with policy, but I am not convinced it is good for the project. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Armanjarrettp/Archive suggests their lack sock block was 2 years before the creation of the current account, and 3 years prior to today. Reading the SPI, it seems like in 2017 they had various blocks on various accounts for addition of unsourced content (& this, w/ CIR concerns).

On their current account, I'm aware of up to a dozen of this editor's successful TfD nominations in the past few weeks (having closed a number myself); they've been doing work in developing Module:Adjacent stations systems (often from {{S-rail}}). Given their success in passing TfD nominations, and the few that I've checked, I would presume they're doing this competently. I don't particularly see concerning notes from other editors above on the talk. There is currently this issue with one of their modules; because this editor is blocked someone else is going to have to figure out where the error lies, including time to catch up on the work, which is a net waste of other editors' time. Whilst this may not be a legit clean start (due to active blocks on previous accounts), it was disclosed since February, and it doesn't appear (at a glance) that their new editing history is too problematic, and instead may be a net positive to the encyclopaedia. Competence can be gained over time, we shouldn't hang people over past mistakes. As for the anti-LGBTQ userbox, as someone who advocated for deletion of the ones presented for discussion, I really don't think it's worth letting it be the point this editor is crucified for (given the general disputes on the matter) -- they've acknowledged that it was inappropriate, and I think it should be put aside. The editor may optionally wish to take this as a note to avoid irrelevant political philosophy infoboxes/comments in general.

If there's no other concerns, I think an unblock with a strong warning to not use any other accounts in the future is a good outcome. I hope an admin will consider it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]