If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put ((DRN case status)) on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craffael.09! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I will look into that. Craffael.09 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Breakingviews, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craffael.09! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Template removal, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craffael.09! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Tutoring for beginners, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikidad! Lets start with my first issue: User talk:Mccapra#Copyediting tag, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Muhyi al-Din Faris-Idris Jamma'. Ruwaym (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ruwaym ! Can you specify your request ? I do not really understand what is it you want ... Craffael.09 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reflexion, you probably just want me to copy edit your articles.. That is not a problem, happy to help.Craffael.09 (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly. This is how I get to know more about English Wikipedia and the English language at same time. Ruwaym (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into your pages and corrected what I considered as translation errors and removed the templates as I did not see any reason for them at the moment. Please tell me if those templates come back or if you need further help with translation. Craffael.09 (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craffael. I feel i am a withered user and wasted my time on Wikipedia, no one respected me on my homewiki, and Persian wp too. what you suggest for retrieval. Ruwaym (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well... First of all, nobody is a "withered user" and everyone, even the smalls editors are useful in WP. Secondly, I do not understand what you mean by retrieval. Please clarify that for me as I would like to help out. Craffael.09 (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed the bug that causes some of your recent edits to be blocked by the edit filter, apologies for the inconvenience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! Craffael.09 (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was just reading the noticeboard (as a lurker) and came across your username at 'Bailey Zappe'. As I have not seen you around before, I decided to check at the volunteering section as you claimed to be a volunteer. It seems like you have typed your username wrongly at the section, that's why it does not show up in the 'Last volunteer edit' in the DRN status that you have above. I'm just going to go ahead and correct it, if you don't mind. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thank you very much. I was wondering why it did not recognize me as a volunteer lol. Craffael.09 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We are glad to have another volunteer. I closed the Bailey Zappe case because of a little-known but important rule, which is that the discussion should be on the article talk page, where third editors might be watching. They can resume their discussion. If their discussion is inconclusive in 48 hours, they may file again, and you can mediate the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ! Craffael.09 (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already Open Cases

Please do not jump into an active role when there is already a volunteer handling the dispute. If there is already a moderator, any other volunteer is welcome to join the case as another editor. But if two volunteers both appear to be acting as leaders or moderators, it will probably confuse the editors. Please continue working on the Herzegovina dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please disclose the username of your prior account that you allege was hacked. Curbon7 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heeey Curbon7 !!! Well, that account was deleted and a good 75% of the edits reverted. I think my account's name was GandalftheGreyDumbledore, but I can't seem to find it anymore lol. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that that it's so crazy it isn't really credible lmao. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that it isn't credible. As WP:DELACC makes clear, it is not possible to delete user accounts. Additionally, Special:Users shows that only a handful of accounts starting with either "Gandalfthe" or "Gandalf the" were created in 2017, and none of those appear to have had anymore than around 3 edits. Please do not lie about the length of your tenure to try to gain clout on Wikipedia; if you do, you will likely be interpreted as not being here to build an encyclopedia and blocked. It's ok to be a new editor. However, Wikipedia works largely on trust; if editors don't trust you because you're lying about your length of tenure, how can they trust you to resolve disputes at WP:DRN, an area you have shown interest in, or to be an administrator, as this folly shows. Please be truthful. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Requesting adminship is a kind of test on Wikipedia to identify those who don't get it. You failed that test. Your RfA isn't even transcluded correctly. Asking for the edit watchlist notice is proof you are nowhere in position for this. The best thing you can do is ask to have that RfA deleted and forget about adminship until you can rack up 10000 more edits and get a good article or two. Don't take this personally. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve and you are not even approaching the point you would need to. The good news is, the best thing about being a Wikipedian is editing articles. No adminship is required for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Craffael, as Chris has noted, you've gone about this request incorrectly, so I've removed your request from the watchlist notice talk page. We expect a significant amount of editing history, and you have not yet reached that level by a few orders of magnitude. I'm also concerned that you're claiming significant experience with a previous account, but you don't actually seem to be experienced, and you're unwilling to identify that previous account. I agree that it would be best to just ask for the RFA page to be deleted. You can just ask for that here. If you read the WP:RFA page, there are several suggestions for reading material on how RFA works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok then. I just wanted you guys to know that I did disclose the username Iused before WP:Village Pumps/miscellaneous. Craffael.09 (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The account you claimed to be your old account doesn't exist, here or on the French WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe fr:Utilisateur:GandalftheWise who was also interested in adminship when brand new fr:Utilisateur:GandalftheWise/adminship. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's from 2009 though. This user claim sthey've been editing since 2017 Curbon7 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And renamed to User:Mìthrandir here on enwiki. Craffael.09 does that user look familiar to you? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you add a ((db-user)) to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Craffael.09 and reconsider an RFA some years in the future. There are a lot more things for you to try out first. Including uploading a picture, checking new pages, renaming a page, tagging pages for speedy delete, adding categories, actually add text to existing articles, and correct spelling mistakes in articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm beginning to have serious concerns about this account. You are demonstrating a significant lack of experience, while simultaneously claiming to have a lot of experience. You don't really have any business mentoring other users; mediating at DRN; applying for the page mover right; applying for adminship; claiming you've fixed short descriptions in order to get a barnstar... It takes time to gain experience. Don't rush it by faking it. There is no shame in being new; there is shame in pretending not to be new. Earn it by actually getting the experience first. For starters, I'm going to go ahead and delete the RFA page, to prevent you from acting on any more impulses. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Short Description Barnstar
		I award you this, arguably way too late, for helping clean up long short descriptions. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 14:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you !!! Craffael.09 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to one long short description you've cleaned up? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all- welcome to the team- you have no idea how happy I, personally, am to have you here. I just wanted to give you a bit of advice based on what I've seen of the two cases you are mediating. I think you may want to engage a bit more. The editors come here because they can't solve things on their own. The editors on Mary, Queen of Scotts are being pretty rough on each other. Sometimes, we have to step in kinda like a kindergarten teacher and remind them to be nice. When they get particularly hostile- sometimes we have to tell them to talk only to us as mediators and not interact with the other editors. Like the one I'm tackling at the bottom of the page. I think the Mary Queen of Scotts case is getting close to that point. Our purpose is to impose structure and calm on tense situations. Letting them talk it out themselves has failed already. Its okay to step in.

Again- I'm glad you are here- Its great to have more volunteers. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craffael, thank you for helping out with GAN reviews. With regards to Talk:Morgoth/GA1, reviews should explain how the article meets each criteria. For example, by noting which sources were checked to ensure the article does not have original research or plagiarism. This helps other editors looking at the GAN at later points to understand what went into the review and the state of the article at the time of the assessment, and can also provide pointers for the nominator to further improve the article if they wish to do so. Best, CMD (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I don't think this drive-by review is adequate. You commented Maybe you can make the lead section shorter by removing the 2nd paragraph as most of the info said is also stated further in the article, per MOS:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents, you should expand on why it's a problem if info in the lead is later repeated in the article, which is normal practice. Besides, per stats the page has 20,858 characters, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, a two or three paragraph lead is fine.

Further, while the article does look excellent, it would be the minimum requirement to explain that you checked the six criteria, which include copyvios (e.g., through Earwig), sources, the Manual of Style, neutrality, and verifiability, to just list a few. Because your review did not complete these requirements, I don't believe that it is a suitable review unless you could explain how the article meets each of the criteria. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe I have put together a decent article but we need to see how the criteria have been satisfied. The lead necessarily repeats what is in the article body as it is a summary of the main text. I'd appreciate it if you could comment each GA section with the checks you made, and if you find anything that needs to be fixed then say so. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll expand my review and add details.

Relatedly, I have removed your two(?) GANs at Talk:Nuri Ja'far. You do not appear to have edited that article, nor based on your userpage do you speak Arabic, so I don't see how you could effectively deal with a GA review. CMD (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My adoptee, Ruwaym is (I think) the creator of the Nuri Ja'far page, and I know that he worked hard on this page. I read it entiredly, checked some sources and thought it could become a GA. Craffael.09 (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I now have confirmation that he is the creator of this page. As for me, I have edited the pages 3-4 times. Craffael.09 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific Wikipedia:Good article criteria that are evaluated in Good Article Nominations, and such evaluation often requires looking through sources. The sources for this article are universally in Arabic, and many are offline. If Ruwaym wants to nominate the article themselves, they are welcome to. It is not appropriate for you to put them into the position of having to deal with a GAN. CMD (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: As I commented below I am not of the opinion that it would be the most desirable for Craffael.09 to be mentoring adoptees, though if they gain more experience and get a GA or two under their belt that would be better. Besides, you still have not conducted a proper review with referencing to the GA criteria, so I would recommend you please do that now if it is possible. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. VickKiang (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I appreciate your enthusiasm, however, you might not agree with me, but I would recommend that you refrain from adopting more users right now. The policies and guidelines at the French Wikipedia is different compared to the English one, unfortunately. IMO you need a bit of work (speaking from me far from being the most experienced user) for the criteria Adopters should have a good understanding of the encyclopedia and its policies and guidelines. It would be great if you can get some experience, starting with remember to sign your posts, re-reading how the criteria for good articles work, and have some solid content creation or anti-vandalism work.

Mentoring other users involve more than just giving WikiLove, for example, your adoptee asked you with c/e previously, for that question you should have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to for some helpful advice. Of course this is subjective advice that you can improve on, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Craffael.09. Thank you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for widespread, long-term disruption to multiple areas (see note below for details).

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 ~~~~)).  Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you from editing, site-wide, indefinitely, after the discussion at WP:ANI noted in the thread above. This is intended as a block on you, personally, so you are not allowed to simply use another account. The reason for the block is general disruption, over a long time, using several accounts. This time around, you have:

• messed up the WP:GA process by fake reviewing an article when you didn't know what you were doing, making life harder for the main editor of that article. You completely ignored requests to stop.
• messed up the WP:DRN process by getting involved, again, in an area where you didn't know what you were doing, making life harder for the people who were trying to resolve a dispute. You completely ignored requests to stop.
• continued to offer yourself to other editors as a mentor, when you do not know what you are doing. You completely ignored requests to stop.
• lied about having significant prior experience in a notice on WP:VPM about your request for adminship.

This is on top of your long-term use of a multitude of alternate accounts to evade scrutiny. Basically, you have been using WP as a playground, with little to no concern for the people whose experience you made worse in your playing around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Morgoth/GA1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Craffael.09 there seem to be consensus that this review is inappropriate. (User:Chiswick Chap, User:Floquenbeam, User:Robert McClenon: revert if you disagree)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. VickKiang (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:VickKiang, User:Liz, User:Floquenbeam - I haven't looked at the history of the Good Article Review and so don't have an well-defined opinion. A Good Article review for the article is likely in order, but not if it involves the troll sometimes known as Craffael09. I didn't intend to make a Middle-Earth pun, but I just realized that the article really is about the inventor of trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]