Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Nearlyevil665 were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hot 101.9 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Starixxgamerrix!
Having an article draft 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! nearlyevil66517:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hot 101.9 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
While I agree with the theme this warning in the general way that this IP is disruptive, I'm confused by the specific warning itself. It implies you had undone one of their edits, but I don't see that in your edit-history. And the editor was already blocked, so it seems contradictory to issue a "good faith" warning long after that editor demonstrated bad faith. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That was my fault, I tried to go back but my computer would not let me go back, so by accident, it issued the warning which I did not want it to. I realized we both issued a different warning, mine was a test edits warning, yours was different. That was a mistake, ignore that warning I sent out. Starixxgamerrix (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I did not mean to issue a good faith one, I meant to issue a bad faith one that the editor was being disruptive, I'm new to using Twinkle, that's why, because I haven't used Twinkle before, so that warning was a bit confusing, I was trying to find the right warning for disruptive edits but I chose the wrong one. Now I know not to do that mistake again. Thanks for informing me! Starixxgamerrix (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Most of the references do not cover the subject depth. Most of the content in the article is not mentioned in the supplied refs.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hot 101.9 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Starixxgamerrix,
Do not create orphaned talk pages. They will just be deleted according to the guidelines for CSD, speedy deletion. Only create a talk page where there is a main page like an article, redirect or User page. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse.
I also noticed that your draft on ths article subject has been declined by AFC. Therefore, it's not appropriate to move it to main space or it could be tagged for speedy deletion. Try to improve the draft using the advice from the AFC reviewer. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!05:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
We need independent sources that cover the subject in depth.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hot 101.9 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manvita Kamath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Aloysius College. 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.)
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
First of all, thanks for signing my guestbook, I appreciate it.
I'm here to talk about the "snow" effect on your user page. While on desktop it unintrusively flows through the margins, and mobile, it's a different story. The snow makes it really hard to read your user page on mobile. I know how much you may like it, but please consider removing it to make your user page readable on mobile and not cause mobile editors to try and strain their eyes to read your user page. Just a request. If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks --- thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$15:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes User:Quirkykiana is my alt account. And I have never done Vandalism or anything wrong on that account or my main account which is Neko Lexi. And I would never commit sockpuppetry, If I was ever accused of Sockpuppetry, and ever got banned one day. I would have nothing else to do. Neko Lexi (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Putting aside all the accounts you've created, your edits are generally incompetent. You are not experienced enough to Welcome! users, so please stop doing so. You are not experienced enough for counter-vandalism, either. Don't change articles based on spelling, grammar (grammar is not spelled "grammer"), etc., because most of the time you're wrong. Wikipedia is not a social media platform, but an encyclopedia. Many of your conversations with other editors are not with an eye to improving the encyclopedia, but more having fun. Do that on other websites. Don't spend so much time in your userspace; you may enjoy it, but, again, it has nothing to do with contributing to the project. Think of all I've said as advice, but you should also consider it a warning. If you persist in the kinds of disruptive edits I've described, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
i was trying to help, and yall warned me about this, I guess that it does not help. its like i'm trying not to feel discouraged about it, but, the almost being blocked kind of broke my heart, because I love Wikipedia, its fun and some editors are nice, but there are mean ones too, now I'm not saying you all are mean, you're just trying to get me to stop, and I understand that. We all have made mistakes, and yet this is my biggest mistake I have ever made, and we all know that, don't do it again, which I pretty sure I won't. I need to look over the policies and guidelines, and to remind myself not to make the same mistake ever again. I was trying not to be disruptive you know, just trying to help. Sorry Neko Lexi (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just removed headers from this page - they do not belong on user talk pages but only on appropriate article talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am really sorry to both @Ponyo and @Bbb23, I feel bad about being blocked per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. I am still young and sometimes I do the wrong things. But I just feel bad, and I didn't mean to harm Wikipedia by doing wrong things. I really didn't mean it. I just wanted to have an alt. but I turned around and did the wrong thing. Neko Lexi (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm a bit confused. This account (Neko Lexi) is not blocked. It's true that, as far as I'm concerned, you are on a short leash depending on your future edits, but you should be able to edit with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ponyo It keeps saying that I have been blocked, but there is no results of being blocked on my block log. Am I autoblocked again? Cause I have not done anything wrong, I was trying to create an article but the block says "The account for Qurikykiana is blocked from editing." But I am not using Quirkykiana, I am using my main account. Can you fix it? It is ok if you can't. Thanks Neko UwUshe/her22:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you recall, the last time this happened, Ponyo asked you for the autoblock number when you try to edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know why you can't do as requested: provide the autoblock number when you try to edit and it stops you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
it says the same thing even when I try to edit a different article. and it does not have a number. And also this is breaking my screen, can we move this to a different page? NekoNeko is always watching02:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see it "breaking" your screen, but maybe the outdent will help. You can try talking to Ponyo tomorrow. She's usually around during the week, but I'm pretty much done. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ponyo Hi, the block you put on my alt account, it went to my main account and it won't let me edit, this happened since yesterday, and it's becoming a problem because if I can't edit anymore, I would be bored. I was told by Bbb23 yesterday that I can get a hold of you, but I can't send you a message, because I'm still blocked, so I might be able to get hold of you here today, since you are most active during the weekdays. Ping me if you get this, please. NekoNeko is always watching12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You wouldn't ping Ponyo on her Talk page even if you could. You'd be able to post directly to her Talk page. You've pinged her here, and that should be sufficient. You don't need me to tell you that she hasn't edited since May 3.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm disappointed to see you creating sockpuppet accounts. You're on the verge of being indeffed, I can tell. Please, stop, for your own good. I would suggest you learn to become a better editor here. If you'd like, I can point to some people who could help. Just telling you for your own good. --- thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$02:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion
I've been watching your edits in the last few days. Almost all of your edits have been to your userspace. Some have been signing other users' guestbooks. A few have been apologies to other editors for your socking. You joined a project, no idea what you think you can contribute there. You responded to User:Lilly is cool (whom I have blocked as WP:NOTHERE) at Wikipedia talk:TWA/Portal. Lilly, who reminds me of you to be honest, said "hello" and you responded "hi". Brilliant. Why did you respond at all?
Only one of your edits has been to article space: you removed some redlinks, and you changed the capitalization of a couple of things; one of your changes was correct, and the other incorrect (I fixed the latter).
What do you think you're doing? Editors are supposed to improve the project. They should not be using Wikipedia as a playground, messing around in userspace, or thinking of Wikipedia like social media.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to try and not be philosophical, but here I am. Neko Lexi, as stated in the block info, you were blocked for making a large majority of edits in userspace (as seen here, which shows that over 59! percent of your edits are in userspace).
The standard offer, which is offered to all users who are indeffed, assuming that they are not site banned, dictates that you must wait 6 months before attempting to get unblocked. Here is what you should do:
Take this as a break, and do not evade your block by socking (creating new accounts). Doing so resets the 6 month timer for the standard offer, and if repeated, could land you a community ban under "Repeated block evasion".
Read our policies on being here to build an encylopedia. You were blocked about not being here to build an encyclopedia, so please read the policy. Also, follow WP:CIR and WP:NOTSOCIAL, as that was mentioned in your block notice.
Wait 6 months before an unblock request. Shoddy unblock requests only reset the SO timer.
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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).
I have been blocked because, namely WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR and WP:NOTSOCIAL, I have waited a while (like a couple of months) as TheTechie said and I am not like User:Lillyiscool, I have thought it over and realized what I have done, I harmed Wikipedia and I am really sorry to the community, Wikipedia is cool, and I wanna be a part of it, so if one of the admins gets this, if I get unblocked, I will focus on the project, I'll do whatever it takes, if I don't, then it's OK. I completely understand. (Also forgot one thing, I have had trouble with alt. accounts, I'll be able to stick with one.) TaylorSwifties Club!05:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
You were advised to wait 6 months, it's only been four. You seemed to say you were willing to wait 6; you seem to have a history of agreeing with something and then later changing your mind and disregarding what it was you agreed to. You also by saying you had "trouble" with alternate accounts to be admitting you evaded your block, this resets the six month period. There is no reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2024 (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.
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I didn't though? My account creation is blocked by Bbb23, so there is no way I would have created one, I understand the 6 months part, but the account thing I didn't quite understand TaylorSwifties Club!13:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Northern cardinal are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: Bbb23: so you're aware. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
