Jump to content

User talk:Username142857

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ideas

[edit]

Please feel free to place ideas for what I should put on my user page, because I really can't decide! Username142857 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Username142857!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, JBL (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Best number base

[edit]
Notice

The article Best number base has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Reads like a essay. The sources provided are youtube links, which are unacceptable on Wikipedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:69F6:E3D2:8BE3:ABEE (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked others to improve it by asking on the talk page to find better sources and make it read less like an essay. Username142857 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best number base moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Best number base, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Ts12rActalk to me 05:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks! Username142857 (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Comparison of number bases

[edit]

Draft:Comparison of number bases, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Comparison of number bases and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Comparison of number bases during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. D.Lazard (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it! Username142857 (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

[edit]

Please stop your tendentious editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3942:60E9:D569:2E31 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Username142857,
You haven't made a good first impression to some people. If you wish to continue editing here, you'll need to formulate a sincere unblock request. Wikipedia has a low tolerance for editors who are goofing around so never submit an article for AFC review unless it is in good enough shape to go into the main space of the encyclopedia. If you want a place to mess around, create your own blog or spend your time on social media. If you want to contribute to the world's largest free source of knowledge, then read over guide to appealing blocks and write a convincing unblock request and get serious about your editing here. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Username142857 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry. I didn't realize that my edits to the article was unconstructive. I was ignorant. I didn't know, and still don't know why my edits to Draft:Comparison of number bases are unconstructive. If you could go though all of the edits, one by one, and explain why each one was unconstructive, that would be great. If you could explain to me which rules were violated in my edits to the article, that would also be great! Username142857 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

Username142857 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Even if I don't know why it's wrong, I will not do it again. I will also not make edits that do nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Even if you don't go through every edit in Draft:Comparison of number bases that I have made, I will not do those again. Please accept my apology. Also, I submitted my sandbox for review because I saw a thing saying 'this is a draft...', and I thought that it meant that I don't have a sandbox until I submit it for review, so I submitted it for review. But now I know that that's not what it means. I won't submit my sandbox for review again. Username142857 (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use this Talk page for anything other than discussing your block or making an unblock request. It is not for discussing new ideas for articles or edits to existing articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm very sorry indeed. I was completely unaware that was a rule. Please can you forgive me for what I have done to Draft:Comparison of number bases. Can you go through every edit and explain why all of them are bad? Because you didn't just revert the senary edit, which I completely get, you reverted all of the other edits there too! Username142857 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers, it says 'Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.
    It is inescapably true that, on occasion, all of us fall prey to that particular conceit.'
    Is that what happened to me and my 'tendentious edits'? Username142857 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's probably what happened. I think it's best if you take a Wikibreak for a few weeks and reflect on what you want to do to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, in a way that follows policies. Your block came mainly because you failed to understand why your work violated multiple policies and guidelines, even though they were repeated to you many times. Also, many people got the impression that you were here just to fool around. That's what led to the block. Even though you were probably trying to contribute in good faith, severe competence issues compounded by your failure to get the point led to you wasting multiple editors' time and disrupting the encyclopedia.
    It's good you are willing to learn from your mistakes and improve. You could probably be a great editor if you read the policies carefully before doing anything, especially creating new articles. You should start with minor edits such as vandalism reverting and typo fixes, then work your way up to adding references and adding content, then work your way up to participating in talk page discussions, and then you can finally create articles. You might want to also consider getting adopted by another, more experienced user. An adopter will guide you through Wikipedia gently, and will answer any questions you have. It might be the best option for you, seeing how you've got off to a rough start.
    As always, good luck on your Wikipedia journey! 2601:647:5800:1A1F:51BE:AD2B:DA8:B1FC (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, ok! Thanks for the advice! Username142857 (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's true, especially with the joke edits. I, personally, find reading long articles boring and I would love a joke inserted every now and then to keep me reading. But I guess that isn't for everyone... Username142857 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about using to allow joke edits? Username142857 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Joke edits should always stay out of article space, as they distract readers and are unencyclopedic. If you want to joke around, go to the Department of Fun. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3430:7DAD:6D52:1817 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what is for? Username142857 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Username142857 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for bad editing. I did not realize my error and have fallen into the trap of MPOV. Please forgive me for my actions. I failed to understand why my edits violated everything. I am willing to learn from my mistakes. Username142857 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your actions here on this talk page are a perfect example of why you should remain blocked. Yamla (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2022 (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.

wdym? Username142857 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your numerous questions show that you have not really understood the reasons of your block. They are described in WP:NOTTHERE, and in more details in WP:Disruptive editing. This can be summarized as: the other editors are tired to waste their time to read and answer your non-useful edits. If you answer to this comment or remove it (as you did for many warnings), this will only confirm that administrators were right in blocking you. D.Lazard (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm sorry for making disruptive edits. I have realized what I did wrong. I have realized that it's not ok to make joke edits in articles and add my opinion as it will get in the way of others reading said article. I recognize that this is wrong and that I should have just made them in my sandbox instead, where it's not going to do anything to anyone as (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) no-one can see it. I will only make constructive edits to Wikipedia articles. Please get someone to review my block, and I'm sorry for bothering you. Username142857 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People can see sandboxes, but they aren't heavily regulated. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction! Username142857 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If sandboxes aren't heavily regulated, why did Bbb23 remove my sandbox for vandalism? Username142857 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who tagged the sandbox for vandalism. The material in the sandbox was vandalism, as multiple other editors have told you. Test edits are allowed in your sandbox, but vandalism is not. You are welcome to recreate your sandbox, and do whatever you want in it, as long as it does not contain vandalism. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it vandalism? It's not an article that will pop up on a search engine, so it's not vandalizing Wikipedia. Also, again, I thought that sandboxes aren't heavily regulated. Username142857 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The {{humor}} template literally contains one huge link to an advisory essay explaining when humour on Wikipedia is appropriate. Your behaviour on this talk page is not helping your case for an unblock, given the reason you were blocked. This is an encyclopedia - do you understand that? — Manticore 08:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do. I will stop making joke edits. Username142857 (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Username142857 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for bad editing. I did not realize my error and have fallen into the trap of MPOV. Please forgive me for my actions. I failed to understand why my edits violated everything. I am willing to learn from my mistakes. I think that my actions in other Wikis have shown that I have changed and will not disrupt Wikipedia if unblocked. Specifically, aside from a few instances where I slipped up from not knowing a rule, I believe that I have only made constructive edits to Wikiversity, Wikimedia and Wikimedia Commons Username142857 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2022 (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.

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).

Username142857 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for bad editing. I did not realize my error and have fallen into the trap of MPOV Please forgive me. I am willing to learn from my mistakes. The block is unnecessary. My actions in other Wikis have evidently shown that I won't disrupt Wikipedia if unblocked and will instead contribute in a way that is useful. Specifically, aside from a few instances when I was ignorant of some rule, I have made only constructive edits to Wikiversity, Wikimedia and Wikimedia Commons.

Decline reason:

You've been posting the same unblock request here repeatedly. It's not a horrible unblock request, and it's not even the worst-written unblock request currently in the queue. But at some point, we have to say "this request has been sitting here for months, and nobody is willing to unblock you at this time". Your edits on Meta look similar to your edits here: that of a bored person. I think you can be unblocked, but you need to stop using Wikimedia wikis to alleviate your boredom and instead contribute to them constructively. That means, on English Wikipedia, expanding encyclopedia articles. If you can give us concrete proof that you intend to do this, I think you should be unblocked. But right now, it sounds like you just want to idle on wikis and post random thoughts. Please make a new completely new unblock request on WP:UTRS. If it's a credible statement of how you'll improve Wikipedia, I have no problem with re-enabling your access to this talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2022 (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.

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Username142857&oldid=1093109438"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy