MCRainbowSupernova8196

Wikipedia is not compulsory, but you are welcome to return – without throwing personal attacks around – at any time after these two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Carambolage

Carambolage is not an English word, so please stop adding it to an English language encylopedia.
SSSB (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

First off, it's encyclopedia, encylopedia. Second, by origin, accident is also a French word. And third, who cares? It's just a fancy way of saying pile-up. Why are we starting an argument about this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Because its usage is inappropriate. "Carambolage" is not an English word and has no common usage in English. Per MOS:FOREIGN, its usage is inappropriate since there is a clear English equivalent. Using a foreign word is incorrect not only because this is the English version of Wikipedia but also because it is likely to confuse readers.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Second, by origin, accident is also a French word. - it's also an English one. And third, who cares? It's just a fancy way of saying pile-up. Why are we starting an argument about this? - it's not a fancy way of saying pile-up. It's a way of saying pile-up in another language. We don't say it happened on dimanche.
SSSB (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

First off, it's Dimanche, SSSB, a name that probably took you 2 seconds to think of. Please learn to capitalise. Second, portmanteau, another French word, has its own page here on Wikipedia. And third, yeah this an English encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean foreign words shouldn't be allowed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The word "carambolage" does not exist in the English language (check an English language dictionary e.g. Collins, Cambridge Dictionary). This is English Wikipedia, so we should use words that English language speakers and readers can understand. Rather than using a French word. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Because portmanteau, unlike carambolage, has been adopted into English. Please read MOS:FOREIGN, as it is quite clear that the use of foreign terms that do not have established English-language usage is inappropriate.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First off, it's Dimanche, SSSB,...Please learn to capitalise. - Capitlising week days is not a universal convention. It's not done in Dutch, for example.

portmanteau, another French word, has its own page here on Wikipedia. - because it is also an English word.

but that doesn't mean foreign words shouldn't be allowed. - nor does it mean that they should be used for the sake of it. See MOS:FOREIGN, which clearly says we should use foriegn terms sparingly. This example doesn't satisfy sparingly.
SSSB (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

References

OK first off, just because a French word was adopted into English doesn't mean it's not a French word. Second, how did you misspell foreign when it's right there in MOS:FOREIGN? Third, why would you use Dutch as an example for capitalising weekdays? Out of all examples, you chose Dutch. And fourth, you spelled capitalising completely wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

OK first off, just because a French word was adopted into English doesn't mean it's not a French word. - never said it was. But a word can be French and English. Carambolage is just French, not English, and is therefore not appropriate in an English encylopedia. Second, how did you misspell foreign when it's right there in MOS:FOREIGN? Third, why would you use Dutch as an example for capitalising weekdays? Out of all examples, you chose Dutch. And fourth, you spelled capitalising completely wrong. - your second and 4th points are due to typos. All three of those points are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
SSSB (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Portmanteau also being English doesn't take away from the fact that it is a French word. Portmanteau actually comes from porter and manteau, both French words.MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss the etymology of any word, because it is not relevant, and I am not dening any of the etymologies you have brought up. The point is that carambolage doesn't have any English usage, and is therefore not appropriate for an English encylopedia.
SSSB (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Portmanteau & accident are both words in the English language, and can both be found in English language dictionaries. Carambolage is not an English language word, and is not found in English language dictionaries. That's the difference. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Portmanteau is very much a French word, as it's made up of two French words, and before it was known as a contraction, it was defined as a suitcase. Just because the English language adopted the word doesn't take away its French origin. And portmanteau is only in the dictionaries because it's a very popular word, and is very commonly used, and carambolage isn't. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No one is arguing about the etymology (other than you). It doesn't matter what language the word is from in this context, just that English has adopted it into common usage. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that portmanteau is a French word that happened to be adopted by the English language. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

But carambolage isn't (adopted by English), so you can't use it in an encylopedia.
SSSB (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh FFS I give up MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Coming at this from an uninvolved angle, as a French speaker I can confirm you wouldn’t use a capital on “dimanche”, or any other day of the week/month of the year. I am somewhat curious as to what has led to this fixation on “carambolage”, though? Patient Zero^talk 19:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It says on your Wikipedia page that you were born in the UK, so where'd you learn French?

It was Spa 2012 btw MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've grown up being able to speak the three languages you see on my userpage, and I'm currently learning a few more (namely Spanish, German, Polish and Russian). And cool, I'm quite a big fan of F1 (I'm specifically a McLaren supporter) - Button got pole position there IIRC? But yeah, I can't say I've ever used the word "carambolage" outside of French, and even then I tend to just use "accident". I remember a part in Michael McIntyre's autobiography where he mentions that you could make an English sentence with more French than English - but those were all terms that have made their way into the English language over time. I'd quite like to see "esprit de l'escalier/spirit of the staircase" become an English saying too, as it has such a fantastic meaning, and we don't have an equivalent to it. I can see you've bumped heads with a few editors over the whole "carambolage" thing - but I can also see that you've made some otherwise positive contributions to motorsport-related articles, and I'd be disappointed to see this go to ANI again. I hate to bring it all up again - but perhaps this isn't the hill to die on? I'll leave you with that thought. Best, Patient Zero^talk 20:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand but this whole thing started because I wanted to use the world carambolage, but because it hasn't been adopted into English, I'm not allowed to use it. I used carambolage because it sounded better than accident, so I added it to the article, but forgot to add {lang|fr|}. Then the argument started because I decided to use a foreign word. Also even if a French word gets adopted into English, it's still a French word by origin. Finally, yes, Button got a pole and in fact he got a hat trick. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the double notification. Missed that you were notified earlier. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but why are you welcoming me when I've been here for over a month?

MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please also remeber to WP:INDENT your replies.
SSSB (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably because that template is geared toward beginners, since they are usually the ones forgetting to sign their talk page posts. SamStrongTalks (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a beginner, however. I already have over 100 edits in less than 3 months. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It was added because you seem to keep forgetting to sign your talk page posts. Nothing more. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I know that, dude. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits

So looking at your recent edits it's apparent you're still continuing a pattern of edit warring and combative editing. Nothing in you edits suggest that you are interested in collaborative editing on this project. As you've insisted yourself, you're not a new editor, so you're then assumed to be completely familiar with guidelines such as WP:BRD, our policies, manual of style, the fact we're a collaborative project, that you should use talk pages to discuss problems in a civilised manner and that you shouldn't be edit warring. I'm going to be quite clear with you, in your very short career here you've resorted to edit warring, personal attacks, refusal to drop the stick, insistence on your way is completely correct, refusal to get consensus or willingness to abide by consensus and generally being a disruptive editor. You're becoming a time sink and at this point you are not of net benefit to this project. You have already been blocked twice, and your next block will be your last. I suggest you stop viewing Wikipedia as a battleground and get with the collaborative editing project that this is. If you don't make an immediate effort to improve your edits, abide by Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and manual of style, you will be blocked indefinitely.

• If you edit war you will be blocked
• If you attack other editors you will be blocked
• If you don't use the talk pages in any cases that arise where your edits are reverted (other than blatant vandalism) in order to obtain consensus for your edit you will be blocked
• If you refuse to follow the manual of style you will be blocked
• If you insult other editors you will be blocked
• If you add unsourced material without providing references you will be blocked

Only you can prevent this. And yes I'm being quite blunt here. Canterbury Tail talk 14:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not intending on being a problem. I'm just trying to contribute to this website, but it seems that people don't want me to. I started editing articles because I wanted to be a part of this and add to this website. Being "disruptive" is not my intention. Contributing is. I just want to contribute, have my voice heard, and just have a good time editing. It's just that Wikipedia rules and people like SSSB and MWright have prevented that. The reason why I edit articles so much is because I want to contribute and have my voice heard. I don't intend on being a disruptive editor.

MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A great rule of thumb is per WP:BRD be Bold and make an edit. If someone reverts it then take it immediately to the talk page and try and get consensus for the edit on the talk page. That way you can make your voice heard and have your say on the matter. Don't continue to make the edit. A good faith edit is not disruptive. Continuing to make the edit after people have reverted you with explanations and not taking it to the talk page is disruptive. If you can stick to this, then you can help be a productive editor. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try. Just to appease you all. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at 2011 Aaron's 499, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MWright96 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As you know, I don't intend on being disruptive. All I did was add links to drivers' names in a NASCAR race. I don't even know how you found that edit. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, what you did was mess up sorting in the table while adding links and then reverted when someone fixed it rather than discussing the change on the talk page as you should. Plenty of people manage to be very disruptive while not trying to. If you continue to refuse to learn why people are saying you are disruptive, there is nothing the rest of us can do. SamStrongTalks (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this about me repeating 2 drivers' names twice or about me just adding links to their names? Just asking.

MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it is about you removing the {{sortname}} templates from the table, which makes it not sort right. Also, you don't have to link the driver names in both tables. Generally you only need to link to each other article once per article per MOS:DUPLINK. SamStrongTalks (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait then why is Robby Gordon's link still there?

MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It appears that that location is the first occurrence of his name in the article. As to why that is, I don't know. Racing is not a subject I'm familiar with. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Understandable.

MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WikiProject NASCAR's conventions, but it's probably because of MOS:REPEATLINK. Bringing this discussion full circle and clarifing a point in your edit summaries at 2011 Aaron's 499, at some point WikiProject Formula One had a discussion and concluded that they didnt want to follow MOS:REPEATLINK with regards to tables (noting that MoS is a guideline, not a hard rule). If I remember correctly, this decision was made as it was determined plausible/likely that people would visit articles just to look at the race result table, and therefore that would be the first instance where those readers would encounter those names.
SSSB (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Manual of style

It looks like you've been warned before for edit warring to violate the manual of style, so please stop doing this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on. What did I do this time? MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsupervised was an American animated sitcom, as it doesn't exist anymore, because it was cancelled after one season. Was doesn't mean it's not American anymore. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It does still exist, see WP:TENSE. It's not a past event, it's a creation that still exists, just like Star Trek the original series, The Book of Kells, or any other type of creation that still exists. Just because it's cancelled doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't exist anymore. Just because a canceled show is still being sold on DVD doesn't mean the show itself still exists. Unless a show can come back from it, cancellation is basically the death of a show. When something dies it stops existing after that. It still exists as an object, but doesn't exist in spirit. For example, Clone High got canceled after one season in 2003. DVDs and archives still exist online but the show itself doesn't. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you can buy the DVD means it exists. The fact people can watch it means it exists. The show exists, it's just not having new episodes made. If someone had scrubbed every possible copy from existence and it was impossible for anyone to then watch it, then it would cease to exist and would be past tense. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to take it up on the talk pages of the MOS and Village Pump if you wish to try and change this consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 22:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2022

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Unsupervised. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. I see Canterbury Tail explained this to you 6 months ago... please stop EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia even have a Manual of Style in the first place? It really serves no purpose, besides forcing people to write a certain way. The show was discontinued and yet still the page uses "is" instead of "was" because of this. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Forcing people to write in a unified way is indeed its purpose. It preëmpts arguments about punctuation and nomenclature and helps maintain collaborative editing. If you feel it's something you cannot abide, maybe Wikipedia isn't the best option for you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeez. And all this over a show that lasted 13 episodes. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You're the one not abiding by our MOS. You've had it pointed out to you, that's how we write because that's the truth of it the shows still exist. If you're not happy with the style you can take it up at the village pump as mentioned earlier. However you've been informed of the Manual of Style's so you are expected to abide by it unless it changes in future. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in 2021 NBA Finals. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:EGG, text for a team should not link instead to a Finals series. —Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This goddamn bot.

Why the hell does JJMC89 Bot even exist? It's absolutely pointless and all it does is remove pictures from my page without my permission. And its only reason for messing with my page is "nfcc violation(s)". Why is that even a thing?! Honestly, it's fucking stupid. And because of that, I can't use pictures from this damn website for my page, even though it's fair use, and everything else I use doesn't fucking work. It pisses me off. This damn bot should be considered a violation in and of itself. Wikipedia, please remove this bot, so I can add pictures to my page in peace. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)• contribs) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not exempt from copyright laws. Non-free content cannot be used in userspace since that would not constitute fair use. Either use a Creative Commons or public domain image instead. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• They're pictures. I'm not even claiming them as my own, I'm just trying to express my love for Comedy Central Roasts, Super Bowl 47, and the 1997 World Series. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's still not permitted under copyright law because you don't own the rights to use the image at all. Since it's not in article space you can't make a claim to fair use. Again, either find a Creative Commons or public domain alternative or don't use anything. Copyright law and Wikipedia policy is not going to change to cater to your desires. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't want them to cater to my desires. I just want us users to have the ability to use images for our pages and userboxes, just so long as they're for personal use and nothing more. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• But they don't allow that and it's not going to change just because you have a problem with it. You don't have the ability to use those images for personal use. If you try to, they'll be removed from your user page. It's that simple. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

OR/POV commentary

This edit is unsourced original research and presents a point of view. Where is the citation that they gained popularity or that their performance was a "cinderella"? Your use of "despite" presents an opinion. The revert was valid, and you undo your re-insertion. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 2022 New York Yankees season, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ZimZalaBim. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Ozymandias (Breaking Bad) that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit summary is inappropriate. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on To'hajiilee. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It literally means fourth-to-last. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW

Howdy. FWIW - the linked-page is called Division Series, not League Division Series. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MCRainbowSupernova8196 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: ). Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You wanna know why my edit summaries have been "uncivil" or "personal attacks"? Cause it's goddamn ridiculous that I have to revert so many edits removing a word that is literally a one word saying of either "third-to-last" or "fourth-to-last" because so many of these people have a 10-letter limit on their vocabulary. It's infuriating. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite your vocabulary, I think the general concern is adding terminology that many readers might not readily understand, when other - simpler - phrases suffice, if such a label is even necessary. Why edit war over this? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Preantepenultimate has 18 letters. Fourth-to-last has 12. Fourth-to-last isn't that much shorter or simpler. Same goes for antepenultimate and third-to-last. And why are we acting like average Wikipedia users are like 12 or under? I'm pretty sure average Wikipedia users know what preantepenultimate means. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As much as I hate the word antepenultimate and think it should be "prepenultimate" instead, I much prefer it being one word rather than three conjoined together. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the number of characters is necessarily the measure here, but even if so 12 is about 33% shorter than 18 characters, so perhaps that is meaningful. Regardless, I fear you overestimate the readership's familiarity with "preantepenultimate". So, again, why fight over this? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Submission of "preantepenultimate" was rejected by Collins English Dictionary in 2012 as it did not have enough evidence to prove it was a real word with real-world usage (link). Dictionary.com has an entry for antepenultimate but labels its usage as "post-college level" (link). These words are not commonly used or understood. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I endorse ZimZalaBim's comments. I think that - as well as being abusive - MCRainbowSupernova8196 is showing bad judgement about the disputed words.

April 31st (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

ABUSIVE?! Seriously? MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You forget that you told me to fuck off.

I note your apology to the administrator and wish you a happy return.

April 31st (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I was pretty pissed off that day and should've understood the gravity of my response. But then again, "fuck off" isn't a personal attack or even abusive, it's just a rude way expressing discontent with someone. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"fuck off" isn't a personal attack or even abusive No, it's actually both of those things. Civility isn't optional. Continuing to try and defend your behaviour is doing nothing other than show an "I didn't hear that" attitude, and it certainly isn't helping your chances of getting unblocked. My personal advice is to accept that you have been combative in the past, acknowledge the valid concerns of other editors, commit to doing better from now on, and comply with the conditions set by the blocking administrator. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I might also suggest that tweeting things such as "Fuck Wikipedia Admins. All my homies hate Wikipedia Admins." (link) does not help your case. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, how the hell did you find my Twitter? Second, that was a joke. That meme's been around for almost a year and a half. And third, if that qualifies as a personal attack, anything worse would be the equivalent of spitting on your mother's grave, I guess. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You use the same username for Instagram and Twitter as you do on Wikipedia, so if you Google one you get the others. But again, Continuing to try and defend your behaviour is doing nothing other than show an "I didn't hear that" attitude, and it certainly isn't helping your chances of getting unblocked. My personal advice is to accept that you have been combative in the past, acknowledge the valid concerns of other editors, commit to doing better from now on, and comply with the conditions set by the blocking administrator. Do you acknowledge this, or not? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, my Twitter and Instagram handle are not the same. There's a few differences because my Instagram handle was too long for Twitter's 15 letter limit. Also, I'm not trying to deflect blame or anything like that. I know that I messed up. I just think it's ridiculous that even qualifies as a personal attack, let alone abusive. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but at the very least you have acknowledged it is rude, so by logical extension it is an uncivil way to address another editor and therefore unacceptable. Putting aside that specific issue, are you willing to fully accept both responsibility for your behaviour and the conditions imposed by NinjaRobotPirate? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but six months from now is March. And I haven't even gone a month without editing since my first two edits, which were over a year apart. If it weren't so long, I wouldn't have so many objections. And also, the other projects don't offer as much as this does. I do have to deal with it, but it's not gonna be fun. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps you can try the Simple English Wikipedia. A lot of the topics you're interested in, like Formula One, are badly neglected. Barely any current drivers have article, and most team articles haven't been updated since the mid-2010s. The community might not be as active but there's a good oppurtunity to work on content creation and demonstrating your ability to work productively and collaboratively. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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) 13:51, 21 September 2022 (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).

MCRainbowSupernova8196 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Preantepenultimate and antepenultimate are simple, and honestly more effective ways of saying fourth-to-last or third-to-last respectively. I had to revert it so many times because the myriad of users reverting my edits didn't understand that. That's all. I mean no ill will to any of them, it's just annoying. I apologize if I may seem deranged and disruptive. All I want to do on this site is to inform people and have fun while doing it.MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I wouldn't say "deranged", but it is clear that for whatever reason you aren't at this time capable of participating in a collaborative project like this. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2022 (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).

MCRainbowSupernova8196 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Alright, I'll leave Ozymandias alone. I had no idea this was such a contentious subject. I'm sorry. I never wanted any of this, I just wanted to inform people. A malicious and disruptive editor is not what I try to be. I never have malicious intent in situations like this. I'm sorry. The things I said in my edit summaries were out of anger, annoyance, and frustration. I messed up and I've learned from my mistakes. If you'll let me, I'll try to be better in the future. For me, things like this aren't isolated occurrances, and I definitely need to sort that out. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The edit warring was just a part of why you were indefinitely blocked. You were already warned and even blocked over your uncollaborative editing and personal attacks. I think you have trouble working collaboratively and within English Wikipedia's rules. One way you could show this is no longer the case is to edit another Wikimedia project. Once you've made shown how collaborative and polite you can be over the course of six months, make an unblock request here on English Wikipedia. You can still edit Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, Wikiversity, Wiktionary, etc. See m:Wikimedia projects and m:List of Wikipedias. You're only blocked on English Wikipedia, so you can edit any other project without issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2022 (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.

Wait. Couldn't you have just banned me from editing on Ozymandias (Breaking Bad),To'hajiilee, Kennedy and Heidi, and The Second Coming (The Sopranos)? Those were the crux of the whole problem. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)