User talk:Flooded with them hundreds

Misc ... The editor whose username is Z0 15:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC) @Primefac: ygm The editor whose username is Z0 16:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC) @ANode:} you've got mail. The editor whose username is Z0 10:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC) @Sergecross73: ygm The editor whose username is Z0 06:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Admins do not move drafts themselves I'm sorry, you might fool a newbie with this, but not me. The draft has not been accepted yet, so you're essentially asking an admin to approve the draft by so doing, when that is not what Template:Db-move is for. You also wrote "looking to accept the draft submission", which certainly implies you're going to move Draft:Narcos (song) yourself. Somebody who is not restricted from making music page moves should be assessing said draft and then tagging the redirect for speedy deletion, not you. You've been reverted, so please stop reverting back already. Thank you. Ss112 04:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Stop trying to weaponise admins against me. Sergecross73 is not on yours, or anyone's "side", so honestly you're only annoying him by tagging him when he has nothing to do with what you're on about. You know quite well Sergecross73 never said for me not to remove speedy deletion tags—that was not what he addressed on my talk page at all, if you'd read it like you claim time and time again you have. I don't know who you think you're fooling. Ss112 04:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC) I’ve moved it independently after assessing it myself: it has a decent chance of passing AfD and arguably passes NMUSIC since it has charted. Admins can use G6 in this manner. It’s one of the reasons people used to file RfA for before extendedmover was introduced. I’m also not Primefac, but to me, this seems like something not intended to be covered by the restriction (and I am certainly no stranger to giving Z0 warnings in this area. Search this talk page history if you want. I’d also have no problem making a block if he disruptively violated his restriction) Z0 has had past issues with article naming disputes involving music, which is what I’m confident the purpose of the restriction was to prevent, but publishing notable drafts to main space is on the whole good for the encyclopedia. Feel free to send it to AfD if you disagree. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: I don't have an issue with independent editors assessing drafts for themselves and tagging my redirects (if they are) in the way with CSD tags. No need for me to go to AfD with what is there now. I was simply trying to seek clarification earlier with Primefac on what editors subject to said editing restrictions are allowed to move, as Z0 already performed a music page move earlier this month and he let it slide. I wasn't aware actions had to be "disruptive" for a user to be violating their editing restriction—I know editors who have been blocked for making a minor edit on something that has been broadly construed to have something to do with the area they are edit-restricted from. I must say I don't really see why Z0 has an editing restriction on them at all if they can still technically move music articles, even if they're drafts. Seems a little beside the point, but I'm not Primefac, so it's not up to me... Ss112 04:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC) That’s fine. I’ve had issues with Z0’s page moves in the past (well, rather, his method. I literally couldn’t care less about music title disputes.) I’m just saying as an uninvolved admin who is aware of the situation, I wouldn’t interpret asking an admin to delete a redirect so you can accept it at AFC to be a violation here. I could be wrong, but publishing a notable article doesn’t seem to have anything to do with naming disputes. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you TonyBallioni for taking a look at this. In general I have not seen any issues with Z0's draft reviewing as a member of the AFC project. As Tony mentions, being unable to move acceptable drafts to the article space is not a helpful restriction. There is nothing controversial about accepting an acceptable draft (assuming it is acceptable). I will be amending Z0's restriction to exempt draft-to-article moves done via the AFC process. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Primefac, could you also add a dummy edit in my user rights log noting the amendment? The editor whose username is Z0 11:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Hi, just about this, since you brought it up and I don’t want to flood the CU page but I do want to reach out to you: when I said that above, I was trying to emphasize that I wasn’t some shill admin you had shopped for to violate your restriction: I have warned you before about naming disputes, and I would block if need be if it got disruptive, but the point I was trying to make was that you weren’t being disruptive at all and that I saw this as an uninvolved admin. For what it is worth, I actually admire the fact that you’ve stuck to what you said you would when you talked with Primefac, and I’m glad that you are reviewing music articles and moving them. If it came off like I was saying I was about to block you, I’m sorry: I was trying to make the exact opposite point: I didn’t think it was fair to you to say moving from draft space was a violation. I can see how this could be read the wrong way now, and I really am sorry if I caused you any distress. I don’t expect you to change your comment (nor am I asking it), but I felt I owed it to you as a person to explain and apologize. I was trying to say you were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia, and if that got lost because I was trying to make a point about being independent, it’s clearly my fault. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Royal Pioneer Corps can you please remove the rubbish on this page, I am a pioneer and I was a fighting soldier fully infantry trained trained in lifting mines, in all my years of service the only person I worked under was my commanding officer, I fought in six conflicts on the front line, pioneers are NOT a labour corps we are proud infantry trained soldiers, what is written leaves me feeling sad and disappointed in the manner it portrays us it does not give an accurate record of pioneers at all and is dowright wrong in its facts mine is truthful as you will find out if you get hold of the royal pioneer association in england — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.136.18 (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC) I understand your point but on Wikipedia, neutrality is required and it isn't appropriate to write using highly-promotional or informal language, or in the second person. Flooded with them hundreds 13:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)