Anyways...

Also...

Notwithstanding, again...

Hello, Diademchild and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Relinus (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] @Relinus Hello Relinus, thank you for your advice and comment. Much appreciated. Diademchild (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image •The missing manual Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost, our newspaper • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi, "retired" and "former" shouldnt be included into the short description per WP:SDAVOID --FMSky (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky Hiya, wow I have just realised this! Thank you for reminding me. Diademchild (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: for people, short descriptions should indicate what they are known for. Footballers like Samuel Eto'o, Yaya Touré, Kolo Touré, Cesc Fàbregas are primarily known for having played football, not for coaching or other activities. See WP:SDEXAMPLES. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on I see, so the short description doesn't necessarily have to state or indicate what their latest occupation is now. Thanks a lot! Diademchild (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. :-) When readers search for an article, the short description should help them decide whether they've found the one they're looking for. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Subjects of BLP articles are not a reliable source for their own age unless there is other confirming evidence. I'm sure you can work out why that is - people, especially in the entertainment field, regularly make themselves out to be younger than they are. Obviously, in most cases this is not the case, they're simply telling the truth - but we cannot take their own word for it without other evidence. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite Hiya, thanks for your comment. Is there any particular BLP article subject you were referring to here? Diademchild (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Dhowre and her Instagram. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a reliable source out there for her age apart from herself though. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite Oh I see! So does the website "Famous Birthdays" count as a reliable source out there for the D.O.B.'s of subjects of BLP articles? Because her age on there, correlates with what she posted on her Instagram page. Diademchild (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that's the problem. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Famous_Birthdays, you can't use that source at all, because it's blocked for unreliability. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite But she openly said she was turning 35 this year (in June 2023) in an online interview, which again correlates with what she posted on Instagram. Surely she wouldn't be lying about that, so isn't that pretty much public knowledge? Diademchild (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I agree, she's almost certainly not lying. But we still need secondary sources for BLP information. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite No worries. I just find it funny how I have seen a couple subjects of BLP articles on Wikipedia particularly in the entertainment sector, have their real age verified on Wikipedia by what they would have posted on their birthday previously on Instagram. Diademchild (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty out there like that, but they shouldn't be. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Paulpat99 (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulpat99 Oh my apologies. As a fellow colleague on Wikipedia, I shall take your feedback on board. ;-) Diademchild (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Editing Paulpat99 (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fresh and Fit Podcast, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya; I hope you're fine. Indeed, I did add content to this page but I didn't provide references as the references are linked to various videos on the podcast's YouTube channel. So I think you made a mistake in reverting my changes; but I will probably look to reinstate the changes I previously made, later on if that is alright with you. Happy editing. Diademchild (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you add your changes back again without a reliable source, I will revert them and add another warning to your talk page. Please note that Wikipedia does not accept unsourced content or original research. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My person, is there a reason you only use extremely vague edit summaries? They don't really explain anything and make it difficult to understand what was done for others without viewing each edit. A type of cabinet (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I hope you're fine. Well I mostly edit the "Article Descriptions" of article pages. But I admit that sometimes laziness can play a part in giving vague edit summaries so if you are bothered about it, I do apologise about that. Diademchild (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Please stop edit warring with me over at the WP:BLP article Amouranth. Else I will be taking you to WP:AE. Please read WP:BRD, especially the "discuss" part. It's BRD, not BRRRRRR. WP:CTOPs require careful editing and less WP:BOLDness than usual. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring with you. With respect, I'm simply appropriating the unhidden and verifiable birth date information for Amouranth, with primary sources. Diademchild (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? It's worse than vague. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you reverted one of my edits recently which is how I came across your account for the first time. I notice you seem to spend a lot of your time adding birth dates to articles, primarily to the short descriptions. I would suggest you make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia policies relevant to these areas, as you may not be aware, but some of your additions would appear to go against these guidelines.

WP:BLP, specifically WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. When a date of birth is added to an article it must be reliably sourced. WP:PRS details the acceptability or otherwise of many commonly-used sources. You can use a verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" if there is no reason to doubt it.

WP:SHORTDESC, specifically WP:SDDATES. It is helpful when you add, say '1820-1882' to the short description of a historical figure, but it is less helpful when you add birthdates for living people. They must be properly sourced within the article in order to be added. (Personally I think even then they usually don't need to be added because they make the short description longer without adding real information, but as long as you're working within the guidelines I can't stop you there).

I hope you find the information in these documents useful and can take them on board going forward. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I hope you're doing fine. Yes, I predominantly spend most of my time adding birthdates to articles of subjects, and the date of birth I provided for one of your recent subject's article is authentic, so I have now reverted your previous change and have included a reliable source in support of that subject's current age. Now regarding short descriptions, I authentically add birthdates for living people especially if their birthdate has genuinely been confirmed, just to keep up with the overall standard across articles of living subjects; so I would never deliberately violate any article description rules. Moreover, thank you for your informational support, as I aim to become a better and respected Wikipedian. Happy editing! Diademchild (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you've added an inline reference to the Myleene Klass article now (and it looks like Klass could have made social media posts that could also be used as references), so you'll no doubt be happy to know I won't be removing this information again. It's really important that all birthdays you add (to an article or a short description) are supported like that, so I hope you keep it up. I won't intentionally 'follow' you around Wikipedia, but there's every chance our paths may cross again, and as long as you're working as you've done with Myleene Klass, and keep to the WP guidelines I've shared above, I'll be able to keep my finger off the backspace key :) best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 September 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Salvatore Schillaci, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bonnie Blue (actress). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Launchballer 15:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Her biographical information can be widely found online. Diademchild (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the biographies of living persons policy. Unreferenced dates of birth and real names, especially given that Blue has stated she doesn't want the latter online, is clearly contentious and will be removed continuously if you insist on re-adding it. You may reinstate her birthday with an appropriate source.--Launchballer 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if I provide a reference for her biological name and/or date of birth, would you accept it? Diademchild (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source for her date of birth I'd accept it; her real name should not appear per WP:BLPPRIVACY.--Launchballer 15:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StarsUnfolded is not a reliable source. See WP:RSP.--Launchballer 15:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what sort of reliable source are you looking for? And honestly, I see no justification for hiding her biological name. After all her friend Lily Phillips has her biological name for display on Wikipedia. At least 90% of Wikipedia articles on living persons, hardly abide by that Wikipedia policy. Diademchild (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists; Phillips's article cites the South China Morning Post, which is regarded by WP:RSP as generally reliable. See that page, linked above.--Launchballer 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I respect you as a fellow Wikipedian, so I wouldn't want to enter into an edit war with you. But I believe I have now supplied a relevant citation for/to the subject's birthdate. Diademchild (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the day in that source, only the month. I rejected it when I was expanding the article, but I'll ask at WP:RSN.--Launchballer 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source you added just redirected me to a spam site. There is a consensus at WP:RSN#NationalWorld.com that the birthdate should stay out, please don't readd it.--Launchballer 15:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are widespread popular English tabloid newspapers which openly state the subject's birthdate, but I figured you'd probably refute any tabloid newspaper source. Eventually her full birthdate will eventually be published on here as she gains more popularity. Diademchild (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's name has now been published by the BBC [1] Guardian and Sky News. Some of those citations were already in the article. There is no doubt that those are reputable sources with editorial oversight and that would not publish fake news or violations of UK privacy law. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So what do you suggest? Should the subject's real biological name, appear in their infobox's and/or article's introduction? Because under normal circumstances it should be. Diademchild (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I provided had a middle name, nor did you add another with a middle name. If an uninvolved user or admin saw that, they could have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Please WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. There is a difference between a performer's first and surname being published by the BBC, and plucking a middle name out of what appears to be thin air. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I supplied a source from Fiji with her middle name. And if you search for her first and middle name on Google, it appears to have some ground. Diademchild (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Amouranth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Morbidthoughts. I understand what you're saying, but I don't get why you're clearly refusing to accept the reality of her birthdate in December 1993, despite what she has said via her Social Media platforms, and despite what a simple Google search confirms as well. To be fair, I'm only publishing what I know from her, being that she was born on 2 December 1993 and her middle name is Michelle; and I will return to provide a genuine reference to support this. The source herself has used her verified Twitter to confirm her age and birthday (thereby using mathematics, her date of birth). In the same way, that there are several thousands of articles on living persons, that rely on confirmation from the source themselves regarding their age or date of birth, is the same way the subject has reveal her's too. But I guess that's the frustration from pedantic Wikipedians like myself, about Wikipedia overall; the inconsistency about the sourcing of genuine information on living persons.

Anyways if you have a look here, I've already started a conversation around her birth year's whole deciphering. Feel free to chime in because I hope we can come to a logical and reasonable conclusion about the facts on her. Diademchild (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have reinstated disputed BLP edits three times over the objections of 2 other users per WP:UNDEL. Not only were those sources disputed as being reliable, you reinstated primary sources that did not directly support the birthdate 12/2/1993 without applying WP:OR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject clearly said she was celebrating her 23rd birthday in a December 2016 post on her verified social media account. So respectfully to anyone, does it then take a rocket scientist to fully understand that she wasn’t born in 1994? Diademchild (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You reinstated an exact date December 2, 1993 on your last revert along with a poor source for her middle name.[[2]] You should have gained consensus on the article talk page before reverting even the second time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the exact birthdate of December 2, 1993, can be found by/with her announcing her 23rd birthday on December 2, 2016, on her own verified Social Media account, so that’s a literal authentic source. I will eventually provide a reference from Business Insider – an authentic source in America – mentioning her middle name. And once I do, that should finalise the topic around her middle name right? Diademchild (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Our policies regarding living persons is one of the most important on the project and the importance of reliable sourcing is paramount. You have violated this policy over and over again, relying on poor sourcing, synthesis and original research to add and restore disputed content to biography articles. I was going to indefinitely topic ban you from all BLPs indefinitely but am going to try this timed block first to hopefully drive home the absolute requirement for the best sourcing when editing BLPs.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:27, 1 March 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Diademchild (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC) I apologise, and realise I made a terrible error of judgement. I totally accept that I should have known better as a smart individual. I was just trying desperately to prove a point using logic, when I’m not really that sort of person. I should have waited for a fluent response from other editors in the subject’s talk page. They have replied but I cannot even respond back to them with this restriction. I’m sure they understood I wasn’t deliberately editing malicious. I’ve never been blocked before, so I never thought it could happen to me in good faith. My actions landed me in trouble but I will try my best to be patient henceforth.[reply]

Decline reason:

Your appeal provides no reason why you should be unblocked. If anything, you seem to agree that the block is justified. That being the case, I am declining your appeal, and suggest you just sit this one out. You may wish to study the WP:BLP policy, violations of which led to this block, so that you can avoid a repeat of such problems in the future. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2025 (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.

I basically told you this would happen here and you brushed me off. I even made my comment under a giant template warning you about how sensitive WP:BLP is. I would hope that if you are unblocked, that you would be a bit more willing to calibrate to feedback in the future without needing to block you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't necessarily brush you off. But I do suspect you sort of initiated the blocking. And you shouldn't have. I initially came to you, for us to discuss the subject's real date of birth. I’m pedantic so I admit I didn’t realise there was such uproar over how WP:BLP articles are treated though. For example, as a mathematician, what irks me is seeing that the subject could be born in 1994, when we all know that's definitely not the case, especially if her birthday's in December and she's currently already aged 31. Diademchild (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you sort of initiated the blocking. Ponyo blocked you, not me. I have not communicated with Ponyo in any way about this. Your behavior violated our BLP norms and is catching the attention of uninvolved people.

What irks me is seeing that she could be born in 1994, when we all know that's definitely not the case. I tried to explain this on the article talk page. I talked about how in general on Wikipedia we want to add accurate knowledge (which this is), but that BLP and WP:BLPPRIVACY are exceptions where we as a community have decided to prioritize a living person's privacy for ethical reasons, over the ideal of having accurate knowledge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturday. I learn my lesson and I’ll sit the edit blocking out. I’m not too big to be punished. Afterall, compared to you all I’m relatively inexperienced in our Wikipedian community, so I guess I’ll take this as my first and hopefully last ever negative moment on here, lol.

Notwithstanding, Amouranth’s middle name is Michelle, and when I return unrestricted I will provide a reference to the Business Insider in support of that. Or if you’re happy to add her middle in now with that reference, I can send that Business Insider reference to you now? It’s up to you. Diademchild (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just drop a link to the Business Insider article at Talk:Amouranth when your block is lifted and I'm sure some folks will take a look. Don't forget that since your edit is disputed, you need some folks to chime in in favor of including it on the talk page before it can be included. By the way, if you're fully onboard with the ideas of 1) being careful editing BLPs and 2) taking disputes to the talk page and getting some support for inclusion before re-adding rather than just reverting, I will support your unblock. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I’m fully on-board with the two points you mentioned above. I promise, I’m not a difficult person to deal with, and as a Christian myself, I understand that I’m not perfect. So I can be misguided sometimes and subsequently make mistakes. But as I’ve said on my user page, Wikipedia has a wonderful community, and I’m sure most senior Wikipedians like yourself, might understand those who prefer to unmaliciously edit in good faith like myself. Diademchild (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, sounds good. I now support your unblock. @Ponyo, thoughts on unblocking? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Novem Linguae. Hopefully Ponyo, kindly cancels altogether or reduces my edit restriction by days. So yes, I'll eventually resume the Talk:Amouranth discussion. Moreover, I noticed that you're an interface administrator and that's a pretty big deal on/for this platform/project. I'm not sure if anyone's ever said this to you before, but with your Wikipedian experience, I'd like for you to be like "some sort of" mentor to me on Wikipedia, if of course you wouldn't mind? Diademchild (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Interface admins are just admins that are good at programming. Any admin with programming experience can apply for it.

I'd say admin is the thing that's harder to get. In my case it required a week of (mostly positive) public comments from over 200 people.

Overall though we try not to focus too much on seniority or status here. The fact that someone is an admin is ignored in article content discussions, where we are all equals, and good sources and correctly following our policies matters the most. Admin status can come into play with user behavior discussions though, where admins can choose to give formal warnings or use their block button, when it follows the community's rules for doing so.

Despite the egalitarianism, if someone is a newer user, it can be a good idea to follow the lead of more experienced Wikipedians, until one's own sense of how things work around here is well calibrated.

Sure, I'd be happy to informally mentor you. Glad to see that you're still excited about Wikipedia and didn't get driven off. You have a good attitude. I think things will work out just fine. I predict an unblock shortly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. So I saw you reverted an edit I made on my talk page. That's good, and as an "informal mentor" of mine, I give you permission to edit my talk page and user page if you want, if you notice any spelling, edit or revert errors. Mind you, I thought as an interface administrator, that you could directly unblock me yourself? Nevertheless, I do appreciate the compliment of "things working out fine" and of me "having good attitude". I hope things work out fine for you too. Diademchild (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revert. Had to enforce WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK.

Myself and other admins do have the technical ability to unblock you, but it is kind of rude to override another admin, and I might be a little WP:INVOLVED here so wouldn't be a great look for me. Ideally Ponyo or an uninvolved admin should lift this block. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What I still don’t get is how Ponyo managed to find my account, to block me in the first instance. Because before the block, I don’t think I had ever crossed paths with Ponyo via any page article. If anything, I was thinking it could have been you to potentially block me, which was why I previously assumed that you initiated the block since as you said, you were technically involved in my revert, lol. So how was I somehow alerted to Ponyo? Diademchild (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Ponyo will tell you when she gets back. Looks like she hasn't edited in a day or two. But I'd say the most likely scenario is checking her watchlist, or receiving a complaint about you on her user talk or at a noticeboard that she was patrolling. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Since the only thing I can do for now is talk to/with you, I have a quick question. Is is true or false to assume the following viewpoint about how Wikipedia works, in one act: Diademchild edits an article and puts in "2+2=4." He is reverted by an editor claiming that "2+2=5." He reverts the edits claiming WP:BLUESKY and "take it to talk, but 2+2=4." Another editor reverts me and says, "It's not BLUE if someone reverts, stop edit warring." I then go to the talkpage and present my case, but the two editors are now claiming they have consensus that 2+2=5. I try to show how 2+2=4, but am told I'm being DISRUPTIVE and a WIKILAWYER. I then say that consensus can't trump the truth, that 2+2=4. Finally, an admin shows up and blocks Diademchild for being disruptive and a wikilawyer. Will the article then show that 2+2=5 due to consensus of its editors? Diademchild (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I don't really want to rehash all that. I thought we had wrapped that up and left it in a good spot.

But anyway, yeah, if people are telling you that putting 2+2=4 breaks the rules, and you edit war with them to put it in anyway, then expect to get blocked. Shouldn't be breaking the rules.

Your analogy also ignores the violating a living person's privacy and facilitating identity theft component of WP:BLPPRIVACY. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

Following a useful chat on my talk page with Novem Linguae, a senior Wikipedian who supports my unblocking, I understand: 1.) being careful about editing BLPs and 2.) taking disputes to the talk page and getting some support for inclusion before re-adding rather than just reverting. So, respectfully we now both believe I don't deserve a necessitation of an edit blocking of seven days upon my account. Regards. Diademchild (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block converted to a partial block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a bad unblock request, but I am little hesitant around your wording of "getting some support for inclusion". You should read WP:CONSENSUS if you haven't already. You should settle the matter on the talk page, and then edit the article, not continue an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya PhilKnight thanks for your response. I agree, yes, that's what'll do. For example, there's even a conversation left for me to duly respond to at talk:Amouranth, which I cannot under edit restriction, but I won't be making any edit or revert, until the discussion or dispute has been concluded. If you have any other recommendation or advice before I get unblocked, feel free to inform me. Thanks. Diademchild (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ponyo: - how would you feel about converting this block to a partial block of the biography article? 16:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight thanks for your help, but I think Ponyo is busy in real life as she alluded to on the top of her talk page. And she indeed has not returned to Wikipedia since she unconventionally and temporarily blocked me, of all people. The only way I can avoid sitting out the rest of my edit restriction, is for another Administrator to rightly unblock me, because she might not return online for a long while. Diademchild (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have converted your block to a partial block of Amouranth article only. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're a legend. Many thanks. I'll resume my discussion on Amouranth's talk page, once I'm fully 100% unrestricted. In the meantime, feel free to provide me with any feedback or any other advice, before then. ~~~~ Diademchild (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 March 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Christopher Hughes (quiz contestant), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]