User talk:Cabayi

Nomination of Jamjarcars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamjarcars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamjarcars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Cabayi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Rich Smith, answer sent. Cabayi (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Potential sock

Do you think this edit is an admission of ban evasion? Northern Moonlight 00:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I do Northern Moonlight. But given that blocks are preventative, not punitive and they have successfully contributed under the radar for 3 years, what would you have me do? Cabayi (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Junghun Choi

Dear Cabayi

Thank you very much for your previous time and guidance.

I have carefully revised this draft in accordance with all comments provided:

- All citations now follow the format, and the References section is functioning properly using

.

- Only reliable, independent, and secondary sources have been used (e.g., Chosun Biz, Forbes Korea, Yonhap News, Korea JoongAng Daily, Korea Herald). - All unverifiable or primary-sourced content has been removed. - The tone, formatting, and structure now follow WP:BLP and WP:CITE standards.

I fully understand the importance of Wikipedia's quality standards and appreciate the work of all volunteers involved. However, I would like to humbly share that the approval of this article is critical for my professional role and responsibilities. I hope this version demonstrates a sincere and thorough effort to meet the necessary criteria.

Thank you again for your time and for considering this submission.

With deep appreciation, — User:방명호 방명호 (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Is there a reason you're asking privately? Is your e-mail on behalf of the Committee or just yourself?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason Bbb23. Does it need to be on behalf of the committee? Can't it just be one admin asking another admin what led to that action? Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I would like to know if the user appealed to the Committee and whether you're looking into it because of that or for some other reason. I don't receive e-mail from other admins asking me about the reasons for my block without them explaining why. Sometimes I'm asked on the user's Talk page if they request an unblock and another admin is interested in unblocking and so they want my input. And even then we only take it to e-mail if there's a privacy concern or one of us wants to say something that shouldn't be said publicly, and unless it's an admin I know well, that never - or almost never because I don't trust my memory - happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Then I shall offer an explanation. There appears to be no on-wiki basis for the block. There appears to be no off-wiki basis for the block in any of the usual places that off-wiki evidence would usually be noted. On the possibility that the evidence is off-wiki I asked privately.

As for any possible appeal to ArbCom (without confirming or denying), if the basis of the block is off-wiki then an appeal would be in the committee's jurisdiction. If the basis is on-wiki the appeal would be redirected to on-wiki processes. In fact, in the absence of a rationale, there is no basis for any admin other than yourself to assess any appeal.

In either case, asking for an explanation of the block is a simple WP:ADMINACCT request. Cabayi (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Any reason why I can't answer your question here - or, even better, on the user's Talk page? If you're concerned about an "off-wiki basis", there is none, so I wouldn't be saying anything that, IMO, needs to be private.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said, given what I can see, there is no basis for any admin other than yourself to assess that need. Cabayi (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Not trying to be coy, but I didn't understand that part of your response. I will take this to the user's Talk page and ping you when I've responded there. Not right now, but should be today sometime, probably even this morning (Pacific Time).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)