User talk:Paflidy

Hi, Paflidy.

Welcome to Test Wiki!

How do I start?

• First, Go to the request rights page.
• Click the request rights button and fill the automatically generated template out.
• Please add a little information at User:Paflidy, your user page, so we can know about yourself.

-- Welcomer (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Paflidy (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Permission

Paflidy, Hi there, You're eligible for sysop privileges, if you curious to testing with sysop permission, then please request for Administrator rights on TW:RfP. Happy testing! --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Roger that, I will request sysop later 👍 Paflidy (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, you're now eligible for bureaucrat's right If you feel to need with testing crat's privileges, then please request at TW:RfP and ping me for faster response on permission page. :) Happy testing! --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 05:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

1

0 Paflidy (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:|

1 Paflidy (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

a

a Paflidy (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

q Paflidy (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to test again.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, read Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, and then you can appeal on this discussion page by adding {{unblock|reason=reason}}.

Paflidy (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from creating accounts for misuse of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.

Paflidy (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing the administrator or bureaucrat tool sets.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, read Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, and then you can appeal on this discussion page by adding {{unblock|reason=reason}}.

Paflidy (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

A

A Paflidy (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocking spambots when they are already blocked by the abuse filter

As the section title says, if the abuse filter blocks obvious spambots, please do not reblock them as they are already blocked. Codename Noreste (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Welp, ok then Paflidy (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Posting questionable links

As the title says, please do not post questionable links. Justarandomamerican (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

ah okay 😁👍 never meant it to be genuine spam anyways Paflidy (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That's why I didn't block you, I assumed it wasn't genuine spam! Unsure why I deleted it for that reason.. Justarandomamerican (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Subject

Test😳 Paflidy (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

example

@Example You need to see this fact 👉🤯👈 Paflidy (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

c8cufbdu

test @Example Paflidy (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocking suspected spammers

Hello! I believe someone informed you of this earlier, but I’d like to bring it up again. Please don’t block suspected spam accounts without any edits. There is always a chance that it is simply a good-faith user. We have an extremely strong abuse filter to automatically block users that attempt to spam, so manual blocks on a hunch are unnecessary. X (talk + contribs) 11:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok sry, next time I will stop blocking accounts anymore 🙏 though I was suspicious of the account being a spam bot since it filled the realName= field with a (first name) (last name) format. Paflidy (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, we just want to prevent good faith users getting accidentally blocked! X (talk + contribs) 12:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you listening to X? Or am I seeing the complete opposite behavior? Faithful (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I just decide to block them earlier before they launch their spam because they are pests Paflidy (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, though, it is more rational to leave the blocking job up to the abuse filter; it is more capable of doing that job than we'll ever be. Plus, seeing a generic first and last name on a user's talk page doesn't automatically make them a spammer. I have learned that by reading X's message above. And you know, it can always be a good-faith user, so don't make assumptions so quickly nor act on them. Faithful (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

test II

@Bhairava7 Paflidy (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

A beer for you!

A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! A beer for you! Paltflidy (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

unblock template test

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

unblocktemplatetest

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Expand

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

Paflidy (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

yesno

Paflidy (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Alternative Accounts

Hey there! I’ve recently noticed an account called Paflidychat was created here on Test Wiki. Are you able to confirm if this account is yours? As per the Test Wiki:Bureaucrat policy you are only allowed to have bureaucrat rights on one account at a time. Additionally that account doesn’t even meet the requirements for this right and as a result the bureaucrat right has been removed. VancityRothaug (talk + contribs) 13:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can make a confirmation edit there if you want Paflidy (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Bot

Dear Paflidy, I would like to ask you not to place bot right directly on your own account without the permission of a steward. A bot may not be placed directly on a normal account, unless it is for a short period of time for testing. If you continue without permission, I will be forced to revoke your bureaucrat rights. Greetings, Drummingman (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll honor your request. Paflidy (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Policy violation

Hello. I have noticed that you have given Paflidycratonlytest, one of your connected accounts, bureaucrat rights. I would like to remind you that as per the Bureaucrat Policy only one connected account may have bureaucrat rights at a time. I have removed the rights from the account. Please be sure not to violate this policy again. Let me know if you have any other questions! VancityRothaug (talk + contribs) 11:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I planned to revoke the alt account's bureaucrat right right after because it was a test, but you have done it anyways. Paflidy (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Understandable, but please note you still shouldn’t assign the bureaucract right to your other connected accounts, even if that is just a test. VancityRothaug (talk + contribs) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

i

h Paflidy (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

suususisid8idididid

wi919wksidjcbuvkcnghdi Paflidy (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Bureaucrat revoked

Dear, @Paflidy, because you have not heeded the umpteenth warning, I have revoked your bureaucrat rights. You have given this talk page bureaucratic protection, and you have abused your bureaucratic rights before. Enough is enough! You may no longer have bureaucrat rights for an indefinite period, with a minimum of 1 month. After one month, you can request bureaucrat rights again from a steward. It is up to you to convince the stewards that you will no longer abuse the bureaucrat's privilege. Greetings, Drummingman (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

News and updates for administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Paflidychat
• PandaFiredoge

• Username
• Chqaz
• Luna

• Tailsultimatefan3891
• Cocopuff2018

Bureaucrat changes

Faithful

• Username
• Chqaz
• Paflidy

Interface administrator changes

• Chqaz
• Zippybonzo

Bot changes

Faithful-alt

Test Wiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

placeholder

placeholder Paflidy (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

fijfhxjx8cjjshahah

Status:    '

Paflidy (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Revision deletions

Hello, Paflidy! Would you mind sharing your reasoning for the continued revision deletions on Test Wiki:Discord and Module:RfP header? Such kind of actions, if used for testing, could be made on Revision and suppression test instead. Thanks, Tester (ᴛ•ᴄ) 15:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Tester. I deleted both of them because keeping them visible doesn't serve any value at all. Paflidy (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that simply the revisions not serving enough value is enough to warrant a hiding action. However, please contact a steward for a definitive answer. Additionally, could you give the reasoning for:

1. The revision deletions on Test Wiki:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe
2. Removal of User_talk:Luna from the abovementioned page

Thanks, Tester (ᴛ•ᴄ) 09:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)