User talk:Minecrafter0271/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi, Minecrafter0271. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . JarrahTree 03:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I do like the place.

FAC nominations

Hi, per instructions at the top of WP:FAC, nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the process -- if you've made no edits to an article, and you haven't consulted with significant contributors to the article, please don't nominate at FAC. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then. How do you withdraw a nomination? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, don't worry it has been sorted. Graham Beards (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Fostoria Glass Company

Hello Minecrafter0271—Thank you for reviewing Fostoria Glass Company. I have always thought reviewing is difficult and underappreciated. I hope the article was interesting. If you ever think that an old glass factory needs to have a GA Wikipedia article, let me know and I will add it to my list. TwoScars (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for liking it. To be honest, the reviewing itself wasn't to difficult. The hard part came when I had to figure out how to pass it, and THEN had to find out how to change the templates. But then, to be honest, it wasn't too hard when I figured it out. Again, thanks for the kind words, TwoScars. And, I don't have anymore glass articles to add to your list, thanks for asking. Thank YOU for nominating it. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"Weird Al" Yankovic changes

Hi there. Just to let you know that I performed a partial revert of your recent edit to "Weird Al" Yankovic. The first instance you changed was a direct quote from the source, so shouldn't have been changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, but it was so jumbled up I couldn't tell. Thanks for letting me know, Cordless Larry. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Minecrafter0271!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,403,482 registered editors!

Hello, Minecrafter0271. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful: The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia A Primer for Newcomers Introduction to Wikipedia Wikipedia Training Modules Simplified Manual of Style Creating a new article via the Article Wizard

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies: 1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly 2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources 3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia Help

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

I highly recommend the WP:Wikipedia Adventure which is an interactive tutorial that guides you through how to edit. S0091 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

GA: Punk Rock Girl

Howdy, I've left some comments on the GA review page for Punk Rock Girl. Thanks. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge close

Hi, I didn't want to modify your edit here but I think more accurate wording for the close would be something like "Merge proposal withdrawn by proposer". Schazjmd (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I just did that. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop doing Good Article reviews

Hiya. On January 2 you said "I just saw a "proper" review on the article, and I am blown away. I certainly can't do that. Yeah, I think that I'll just stick with editing, for now." So you already admitted that you didn't know what you were doing with Good Article reviews but now I see you were still reviewing on January 6. These reviews really aren't up to standard and will need to be reversed, which means other editors having to do a lot of work. You've done maybe 6 or 8 now. I'm happy to give you a hand learning how to do reviews but I can assure you it does take a while to learn the process and I would say you need to edit for months first before being able to take on a review. Do feel free to ask me questions here or ask over at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Please don't start any more Good Article reviews. Mujinga (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Mujinga. I know the criteria, I have since managed to figure out the templates and stuff, which was what I couldn't do at the time, and there is no official policy that says that I can't do reviews. So I really see no reason for you to delist all the articles that I did simply because I'm a newcomer. If you think that the article doesn't meet the criteria, then reassess it. Don't just say "yeah, they're a newcomer and because of that his reviews aren't valid." I understand the quote might confuse you, but I DO know what I'm doing now. So, yeah. And, I WON'T stop with the reviews. I'll take a break so my talk page isn't filled with annoying little editors, but I will keep doing those reviews in a couple weeks, or maybe a month. Don't just reverse my reviews because you don't think their up to standard. Just put the issue up on the review page, or even the talk page of the article. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Minecraft. I understand that you are probably feeling a bit piled on at the moment and I hesitate to add to that. I have been involved with reviewing good articles for quite a few years now and would like to offer some advice. The Good Article process is a lightweight means for editors to get feedback on their articles. As you have realised it is a heavily backlogged project so it is great that you are interested in reviewing. The backlog also means that many nominators wait a long time for a review, so we need to make sure they get a decent one when their turn comes.

We have some simple criteria that we ask that they meet, although many appreciate additional feedback. It is important, especially when you are new, to show that you have assessed the article against this criteria. Many of your reviews seem to be giving commentary on the article as opposed to reviewing it against the criteria. Talk:Bruno Mars: 24K Magic Live at the Apollo/GA1 is probably the best review I have seen from you, although I have found it makes life easier to treat it a bit more collaboratively (i.e. I am a little bit annoyed and I'm not going to wikilink it, but just to let you know could be received poorly by some nominators). Also just a FYI that stability is more a measure of how much the article is changing, not on how old the citations are. It is hard to review an article undergoing an edit war or mass expansion.

The editors at the Good Article project are generally a friendly bunch and we were all new reviewers at some point, so don't be afraid to ask for advice. You could ask me personally or leave a question at the help desk or one of the talk pages. There are a few essays out there with good advice like Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Mujinga is right that it is easier to come to this area after having some experience editing the encyclopaedia in general. I would recommend working on an article or two and putting it through as a nominator so you can experience the other side of the coin. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, AIRcorn. First off, thank you for understanding. I do appreciate the constructive criticism. Now, let me explain the two quotes you mentioned.

I am a little bit annoyed: There was a typo in the title of a subsection. Yeah, of course I'm gonna be upset. I was tempted to fail it right then and there under the grammar criteria. I fixed it, and then it was good enough to pass. But, yeah, I was annoyed.

I'm not going to wikilink it, but just to let you know: I don't even know how a nominator would take that negatively. If you could explain, then that would be great.

Once again, appreciate the post, and I am happy that you understand. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The whole process is supposed to be collaborative. Those comments do not come across that way. Also you shouldn't fail an article because of a single typo and it is an odd thing to get upset about. If you continue reviewing you are likely to come across a lot of typos and worse. It is another reason why it is a good idea to become familiar with editing here before diving into reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Aircorn. Let me break it down for you. I have stated a couple of times that I am taking a break from reviewing, and if you scroll down, then you will see that I have been talking to Mujinga about mentorship. So, yeah, I will try some edits, then come back with some more experience. Happy now? I do admit that I was rather foolish to start talking about failing the article for one typo, though, and I apologize. Cheers. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My GA Reviews

Hello! I just went through the "New reviewer" discussion on WP:GA talk page, and I need to clear some things up. First off, I am taking a break from GA reviews, but I'm not quitting. I just am tired of people complaining about me. But, I wanted to talk about it. Aircorn said I feel we are dealing with a young, enthusiastic editor. I am young and enthusiastic. I also saw some recommendations for mentoring of new reviewers like me, which I would highly appreciate. I know I created the false impression that I don't want any feedback, but I do. If my reviews were a mess, then why don't you say so on the review page? Or on my talk page, which only Mujinga and Aircorn had done. But don't say that behind my back. Again, I would love some mentorship, and to become a decent editor one day. Thank you for understanding. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Minecrafter0271, I would be happy to mentor and help out although my experience on Good Articles is admittedly still quite limited. Wikipedia is generally a friendly and welcoming place, so pleasee do feel free to ask for help. I'm replying here because you pinged me, I don't have so much to add. I could definitely recommend reading some other good article reviews to see how other people do it. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Mujinga. I would be happy to be mentored by you, thanks. Cheers.

Great just drop me a line on my talkpage or ping me here if you have questions. The ping above didn't work out, probably because you forgot to sign the post with the four tildes. I also find if you preview a message containing a ping it doesn't work, so it's best to add the ping last before posting. That's my top tip for today!! Mujinga (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge of Articles of Impeachment

Good job on the merge. Looks like you followed the instructions just fine. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Sirfurboy. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

How did you get the wings?

I'm just wondering on your user page, you had wings badges, how do you get them? Also, welcome to Wikipedia! New3400 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I played through the Wikipedia Adventure, and they were just added in automatically as I progressed. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
117		History of the United States Congress (talk)	Add sources
2,514		High crimes and misdemeanors (talk)	Add sources
46		Chrysler Air-raid Siren (talk)	Add sources
23,795		Impeachment of Bill Clinton (talk)	Add sources
1,402		Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials (talk)	Add sources
66		Georges Hébert (talk)	Add sources
5		Hartvig Nissen (gymnast) (talk)	Cleanup
59		Mike Diva (talk)	Cleanup
110		State ratifying conventions (talk)	Cleanup
12,074		Turkey (talk)	Expand
28		Virginia HOT lanes (talk)	Expand
211		Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020) (talk)	Expand
1,004		RingCentral Coliseum (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
704		Coroner (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
386		War Powers Clause (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
183,401		Coronavirus (talk)	Merge
4		Los Andes vs Prueba (talk)	Merge
112		Guided bomb (talk)	Merge
51		Edith Margaret Garrud (talk)	Wikify
365		Impeachment investigations of United States federal judges (talk)	Wikify
9		Oslo Package 3 (talk)	Wikify
29		Sketchnoting (talk)	Orphan
4		Sakkaramallur (talk)	Orphan
55		Liking gap (talk)	Orphan
24		Robin Davis (talk)	Stub
74		Conad (talk)	Stub
13		Joe Bonomo (strongman) (talk)	Stub
12		Kalambur (talk)	Stub
43		Balance of power (federalism) (talk)	Stub
4		Publius Cornelius Scipio Asina (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Minecrafter0271! You created a thread called How do you promote articles from start-class? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Minecrafter0271! You created a thread called Can I withdraw my nomination for a move? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to List of YouTubers, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. hey, you kinda broke the table with that edit. LanHikari64 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the GOCE!

Hello Minecrafter0271 and welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors! We are glad that you have decided to help us in our mission to improve grammar on the English Wikipedia! Here are some links that you might find helpful to get started on your copy-editing journey!

• A how-to guide to Wikipeda copyediting

• Wikipedia manual of style - helpful to refer to while copy editing

• A simplified version of the above

• A quick guide to writing on Wikipedia

You can help out here already have considerable English copy-editing skills or start out here to gain experience.

Thank you so much for joining the GOCE, we appreciate it!

For the GOCE, Puddleglum ^2.0 17:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,014		Anglican Communion (talk)	Add sources
6		Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough (talk)	Add sources
23		Oliver Eden, 8th Baron Henley (talk)	Add sources
24		Alexander Elphinstone, 19th Lord Elphinstone (talk)	Add sources
170		Michelle Howard (talk)	Add sources
5		Baron Simon of Wythenshawe (talk)	Add sources
113		The Pierces (talk)	Cleanup
122		Spring Championship of Online Poker (talk)	Cleanup
45		IBM Yamato Facility (talk)	Cleanup
102		Anglican Church of Southern Africa (talk)	Expand
51		Global Anglican Future Conference (talk)	Expand
170		Low church (talk)	Expand
277		Anglican Church in North America (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
788		Bishop (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
418		Syriac Orthodox Church (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,722		Red Hat (talk)	Merge
314		Award (talk)	Merge
193		English football clubs in international competitions (talk)	Merge
150		Curzon Ashton F.C. (talk)	Wikify
155		Fabián Balbuena (talk)	Wikify
34		IBM Center for The Business of Government (talk)	Wikify
2		Ruly Saputra (talk)	Orphan
5		Mouse Mischief (talk)	Orphan
14		Correlates of immunity/correlates of protection (talk)	Orphan
76		Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat (talk)	Stub
118		Sports Reference (talk)	Stub
1,185		Priyam Garg (talk)	Stub
46		Anuj Rawat (talk)	Stub
7		Parandaman Thamaraikannan (talk)	Stub
4		George Pease, 4th Baron Gainford (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts

Hi! Minecrafter0271, thank you for volunteering to be a host at the Teahouse. We really appreciate your willingness to help! However, we see that you are pretty new around here and have not edited very much in mainspace yet. It takes a lot of time, background knowledge and patience to answer new editors' questions effectively. So you should probably edit for a while longer before you sign up to be a host. That said, you're still very welcome to answer those questions that you can, and we hope you continue to participate and spread the word about the Teahouse to other new Wikipedians. Come back soon!

Thank you for your keenness to help others, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comparison of project management software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AGPL (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) 14:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. An edit that you recently made to Mississippi River seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see Template:Infobox river for template details. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee RfC

Hi. I see that you have been posting endorsements on different sections of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. I'm one of the arbitrators and I appreciate your interest in our work. However, that request for comment was posted in 2008 to discuss the Committee as it existed at that time, more than eleven years ago. It is no longer being read or updated and it is not useful for you to be editing that particular page now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Oops. I thought the ones on the top were the newer ones, or they would be archived or something. Sorry. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

On the top where? Let me know where you were looking and I'll see if that ought to be clarified. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: On the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. Please get that sorted out. And, aren't discussions from 11 YEARS ago supposed to be closed and archived? It was still open! Please get that clarified, thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm S. M. Nazmus Shakib. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. G. Marar have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. The discussion is not finished yet. Even, it was relisted. Why dou you keep it? If you do it again, your activities will be complained. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib: I use the XFDCloser. I accidentally clicked "Quick Close." Unfortunately, there was no "confirm" message, it just got closed right away. I tried to undo it, but I couldn't find out how to. Thanks for the warning, though. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. Also, you might want to change the tone. It is very harsh, and kind of intimidating. Just for future reference. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, if you appeal to WP:BITE, either implicitly or explicitly, it doesn't apply to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: What do you mean? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Slow down

You're moving too fast. At the current rate, you're very likely to end up blocked for disruptive editing while trying to be very helpful. Yes, we block people who are trying to be helpful when they don't listen to the advice like Newyorkbrad is giving you less bluntly above and I'm giving you more bluntly here. Focus on content, then move on to maintenance tasks later. I unfortunately mainly deal with WP: space these days, but no one gets respect on this project for only dealing with behind the scenes stuff. We are here to build an encyclopedia and content comes first. Focus on that, and then eventually you can move to other areas. If you want to look at this as a "warning" you can, but it's really meant to help you, and not in a mean way. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Okay. You say that it's not a warning... RIGHT AFTER YOU THREATEN TO BAN ME! Sorry, but I'm getting kind of angry. I don't need a ban right now, actually, that's the LAST thing I need. I know you're trying to help, but this isn't the right way. I will focus on content though, so I don't get banned. Which, if I DID get banned, I would probably appeal unless the blocking admin provides a substantial amount of evidence. Other than that, I have nothing else to say. Bye. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No, actually, I said it was a warning but to take it as my trying to let you know that you're on the path to a block so you can avoid it. If you want it more explicit, I can do that was well: stop getting involved in areas over your head where you have no clue how it works or you'll either be blocked by an individual admin or by a thread at ANI.

You're not the first user to act like this and you won't be the last. Those who take the advice to slow down tend to do well here. Those who don't tend to exit on the community's terms rather than your own. As for your question above: you're pretty clearly playing appealing to the principles in WP:BITE both here and in your response to the warning above, and doing it in a way to try to distract from the fact that people have pointed out legitimate issues with your approach (namely, you're doing things you have no clue how to do.)

If you know enough about Wikipedia to know that being kind to new users and helping them grow is one of our behavioural norms, you know enough about Wikipedia to not really be considered a newcomer and to know most of our other behavioural norms. (See this essay which I just wrote on the topic since it comes up frequently enough.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Minecrafter0271, I actually came here to give similar advice. TonyBallioni didn't threaten to ban you - the point of what he's saying is that you're jumping into things too quickly and you're not really listening to experienced editors (I count at least four on this talk page) who are gently trying to tell you that you need to slow down. I get it, you're new and want to help out, but right now the problem is that you're not listening, and not listening + over-eager new editors often equals disruptive editing. Please just take some time to work in article space - write an article, improve an article, clean up vandalism, whatever suits your fancy - and just watch Wikipedia space so that you can learn what the norms and culture are. creffett (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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).

Minecrafter0271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Okay. I understand what I did wrong. I tried diving into behind-the-scenes editing too soon. I understand everyone's frustration. I swear I will change. If I don't, I will leave Wikipedia forever. Just please give me a second chance. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You will have to show a much higher level of self-awareness and caution than you've displayed so far in your editing career. Your declaration immediately below that you're just misunderstood doesn't advance that cause. Everybody else here is a volunteer, and you're using up time and patience with a bull-in-a-china-shop approach to the encyclopedia project. Acroterion (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

Minecrafter0271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per what I've stated below. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles.
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
• If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
  1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
     • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
• Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Your first edit after my warning above was to request a reliable source for a mathematical fact, while reviewing an edit request. I'll let someone else review this unblock since I just was warning you, but you look to be trolling us. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Second chances aren't given to people who are just here to troll the encyclopedia. In just over a month you have done nothing in the mainspace but add tags, propose deletions and a tad bit of vandal reverting. Everywhere else you are just purely trolling like the edit request you just declined, asked for a RS when it's a mathematical fact. Beyond that, you've trolled just about every other Wikipedia space available. I wouldn't be surprised if you were someone's sock given the knowledge you put in to your first edits. It just looks like your around to get by 500/30. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: @DeltaQuad: Okay. I AM NOT A TROLL! I am an editor. I'm not a sock. I'm not any of that. I'm not trying to troll anyone here. I'm not trying to get around 500/30. All of those allegations are false. I'm sorry if I made it seem that way, but I can promise, if I'm unblocked, that I will be a better contributor to Wikipedia. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not addressing your disruptive behavior but claiming our assessment is all wrong is the perfect way to get unblocked. Have a good night. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I said, in my review summary, that I know what I did wrong. I like to pounce into things to early. That's me. I know I have to change it, and I will. However, calling me a "troll" is completely false. I'm not saying "I'M INNOCENT!!!" Since you want me to address my behavior, I will do that. So, let's talk about the edit request. They provided a number with no citation. They just need to go to Google, find a source (there should be hundreds), come back, then make the request again. Now, about the AfDs and the tags. I admit, I was being a bit obsessive. I shouldn't do that. I'll be sure to cut it down if I'm unblocked. Also, I'll try doing some more mainspace edits. I think I've gone through all of it. Now, once again, I. Am. Not. A. Sock. I just wanted to clarify that. Please consider what I've stated above. Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Just my two cents, and I may be wrong, but I don't think a mathematical fact should need to be cited. You don't see 2+2=4 being cited anywhere, because everyone already knows it to be fact. Looked at your response to what should've been a routine, easy change. What? 1000 million is never correct. It is always 1 billion. Stuff like that does not need to be cited. It just is. If we needed to cite that, we'd end up having to change like 1000 million pages to cite how numbers work. LanHikari64 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You also probably shouldn't remove an active block message. Just saying. LanHikari64 (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@LanHikari64: I tried removing the retired template, and for some reason, it removed the block message. I don't know what happened. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Minecrafter0271, answer me this - do you think that 1000 million and 1 billion are not equal values? I'm wondering if there's some confusion about that going on. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Yes. However, for some reason I missed the "million" part. Probably because I was tired. If I had realized that, then I would have definitely done it. Also, don't mind the retired template. I just leave it there because the block notice above for some reason disappears when I try to remove the retired template. Cheers! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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).

Minecrafter0271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Above, I have proposed some changes to an article as required for a second chance. I believe that it's enough to win back the trust of he community. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The Encyclopedia of Mathematics is a Wiki and therefore is not a WP:RS. Can you please try to find secondary sources and try to answer the question: "Why do we care?" Take a look at Convex hull, Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem, or Kawasaki's theorem for an examples of what I am talking about. I'm not expecting a full GA, but I am expecting real content work. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Comment by non-admin: Since this is the third time, I'll ask the reviewing admin to revoke your TPA if they decline it. ミラP 17:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Your offwiki comments that I was pointed to of "fuck Wikipedia" and "fuck DeltaQuad" are really not helping your case, but are just proving my original point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Because I am fucking DONE with Wikipedia. I'm tired of you "big bad admins" bossing us newer users around. I don't do what you bullies tell me to do? "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing." What the fuck? By the way, I've never got anything higher than a Level 1 warning (which isn't even really a warning, it's just a general note). And then you call me a sock? Fuck you, and fuck Wikipedia. Block me from my talk page. I don't give any fucks. I used to be of the opinion that admins actually did something fucking useful on Wikipedia. But that has not been the case. They just bully and block. And DON'T use me as an example for what happens to people who don't obey your every command. Have a horrible life. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this has clearly gone far enough and has stepped into the line of abuse. Talk page access is revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Speight (February 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Drover's Wife was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tom Speight and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tom Speight, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Minecrafter0271! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey.

Listen, know you got banned, cheer up dude. Don't need to retire. New3400 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tom Speight concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tom Speight, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tom Speight

Hello, Minecrafter0271. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tom Speight".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #69200

I have reenabled talk page access so you can make an unblock request here. You'll need to account for the issues that lead to your block. You'll also need to demonstrate a meaningful improvement to an existing article, as per User talk:Minecrafter0271/Archive 1. -- Yamla (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Be warned, failure to follow those instructions and you'll likely lose access to your talk page right away. Please make your request count. --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering, it's been a while since I did one of these, how do I do this again? I'm sorry, like I mentioned in my unblock request it's been like 3 years lol

Thanks a lot <3 Minecrafter0271 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:GAB explains how to craft an unblock request. You also must review User talk:Minecrafter0271/Archive 1. We expect you to demonstrate a clear understanding of WP:RS, demonstrate a meaningful addition to an article (as per Archive 1), and address the behaviour that lead to you losing talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)