User talk:Leaderboard

Welcome!

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

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Widefox; talk 13:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User:Leaderboard may not be appropriate to be indexed by external search engines as presently written. Typically, this could be because it appears promotional, or contains material in development or archived that doesn't yet meet policies and guidelines. I have tagged this page as __NOINDEX__, which allows editing but minimizes the page's inclusion in search engine results.

If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note here and we can discuss it. As an alternative, you may add {{db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, you can change the page so that it more clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines, or you can edit it as normal and ignore the tag completely (it will not affect editing).

However, please do not remove the tag without discussion. Thank you. Widefox; talk 13:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Leaderboard, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Widefox; talk 13:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Admr Boltz 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal

Hi ,

Sorry for violating Wikipedia's rules.

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).

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

Request reason:

Apprantely , I didn't know that this would contribute to a violation of Wikipedia's rules. I simply thought it as a small 'brief' to my custom browser. Please unblock my account. I didn't intend to spam at all. You can see my main MediaWiki account(Leaderboard) to verify it.

Decline reason:

Your intent is irrelevant; your request does not address the username issue. You should propose a new one using {{unblock-un}}. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2013 (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.

--Leaderboard (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not believe that the username Leaderboard should be blocked. It is simply that I use the name Leaderboard in most sites and have also used that name in my website and in my custom browser. I do not see the reason of ban here. Thank you , Leaderboard (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If I'd blocked you, it would have been with the spam username format. Saying "Get it at..." is advertising whichever way you look at it. Leaderboard is the name of your site, and of a product of yours. It is therefore not a suitable name for use here. I would point out that even if/when you get a name change to something suitable, you will probably be restricted from writing about or linking to your site or product(s). Wikipedia does not allow advertising or promotion, or things that look like them. Peridon (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2014 (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.

Unblock request 3

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

new username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Is there any exception here ,considering my contributions to other projects? I know that I'm making a lot of requests for unblock , but I am willing to contribute here as well , but am stopped by this unwanted rule(at least in my case). Thank you.Leaderboard (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, you still need to change your username. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21740 was submitted on Jun 06, 2018 10:55:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 5

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been asked to appeal at my talk page, so here goes. Right from the start, I believed that I had done no wrong and that I was unfairly blocked because some user(s) (and the admins who rejected my previous appeals) had misassessed the situation completely.
Let me make it clear:
Leaderboard is just my pseudonym. It is NOT a company. It is NOT registered anywhere in the world. I don't earn any kind of money from the name.
The only thing I did was to create a website (which is defunct since 2014) with my pseudonym, which some user(s) and admins somehow thought it violated the rules. And that was just my personal website; what's wrong with that? My username "Leaderboard" was thought to represent some company, group or entity and hence apparantely violated Wikipedia's rules. I never did any sort of 'promotion' on any public Wikipeda article. At that time, I just put some introductory information on my userpage about a web browser that I was working on only on my userpage. That one was as private (i.e, nothing to do with a company or entity) as it could be; it could easily be written as James' Web Browser instead of Leaderboard's Web Browser (or someone simply linking to his/her GitHub repo) and which is also defunct since 2014. And if that (unintentional 'advertising') was the issue, I was not properly notified of the same and was a clear newcomer bitten. Let me repeat it again: Leaderboard is NOT a company/entity/for-profit/non-for-profit in any form - it's only my personal pseudonym. And somehow only Wikipedia (of all the Wikimedia sites) thinks that it is. Leaderboard (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your name seems to represent a product- a web browser. Your deleted user page had "Leaderboard Web Browser" on it. You will need to change your username, as several others have told you. I am declining this request; if you make another where you do not suggest a new username, your talk page access will be removed. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 6 June 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.

Unblocked

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_Leaderboard's_block

I have unblocked.

You have read the concern about your username. While the initial block was appropriate, a username referred to a product that was in existence at the time, it appears that it is now defunct. Although a user rename would resolve all concerns, I recognize you have contributions to multiple projects, so the user rename is not a good option. Please understand that if the project associated with your name is reinvigorated and you edit about it, a block is likely to follow.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick:Thank you. Finally I can start contributing to Wikipedia like I would do to any other project rather than being held up by an useless block. Leaderboard (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows XP scaling at 200%.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about DPI scaling in Windows

Hello, Leaderboard,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether DPI scaling in Windows should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPI scaling in Windows .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mixed-mode scaling.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mixed-mode scaling.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Windows 2000 scaling at 200%.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Windows 2000 scaling at 200%.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Windows XP scaling at 200%.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Windows XP scaling at 200%.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Mixed-mode scaling.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mixed-mode scaling.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi, Leaderboard. I have seen that you did not voted in 2019 for Vituzzu to be confirmed as Steward. I agree with you and for further information about "who is Vituzzu", please go to (Redacted) Sincerely, M1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.195.120 (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know enough about him to make an informed decision on this. Leaderboard (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I think he/she is right... Ransome7 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not get you @Ransome7:. Leaderboard (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central Board of Secondary Education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir (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) 06:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Entry About your Behaviour

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KieranMaher/Block_wikibooks

Thank you for the incentive - a full list of your behaviour will soon be displayed on WP for all to understand your autocracy.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For helping User:82.3.185.12/User:Dreamboat1234 get unblocked and initiating for DB1234 to use his SUL. After all, I may as well remove my IP talk page soon. Cheers, -- SHB2000 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your recent post to the Dave Plummer talk page. Please note that I specifically mentioned that I don't think you did anything wrong or are in any way at fault. The thread is New tactic from the Dave Plummer Troll. Thank you. — Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]