D97931478

September 2021

Hello, I'm 94rain. An edit you recently made to Steinlen (horse) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 94rain ^Talk 17:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Burrunan dolphin, 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. Thank you. Politanvm ^talk 18:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @D97931478, please note that you don’t need to save every time you add or remove a comma. You can make multiple changes within one edit. Saving every time creates unnecessary clutter in an article’s revisions. Politanvm ^talk 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Novel virus, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Politanvm ^talk 18:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Editing. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Politanvm ^talk 18:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought awarded was a good replacement for given, as something bestowed as opposed to given, as in given away.D97931478 (talk)

Response to previous Posts

Apologies for any unwanted edits or mistakes as I move from testing to genuine corrections. I am mostly correcting punctuation, occasionally substituting words if a better alternative is available, and minor restructuring where a more concise phrasing is a natural progression.D97931478 (talk)

That’s fine, but please don’t press “Publish changes” until you’ve finished. Many edits in a row that change only one letter at a time are indistinguishable from vandalism. Politanvm ^talk 19:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Like the good old days when computers worked. I find it prevents mistakes, and reduces errors that are easier to correct, than it creates. I appreciate your point of view but once the edit is completed surely the validity of the edit is what is important and clearly it is work not vandalism.D97931478 (talk)

I’m not following how saving one character at a time helps avoid mistakes, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community of contributors, and it’s important that your edits are comprehensible to others. If you’re editing one character at a time, it is difficult for others to see the whole change, you aren’t able to add an edit summary, and it clutters the revision history. Please try to use the Preview button to avoid publishing mistakes. Also, I’m glad to see you’re experimenting with page moves in your own user space. Please be careful not to accidentally move a user page out of user space (i.e., pages starting with “User:D97931478/“). You had moved your sandbox to “Template” space, and it will need to be deleted by an admin. Also, please indent and sign your talk page comments. See Help:Talk pages. Politanvm ^talk 19:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Page move

How do I go about moving a page back to the original location and deleting the redirects.

I moved a page, Wynyard railway station, and it mostly redirected automatically but left a messy second redirect and I’m not sure what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D97931478 (talk • contribs)

Hi, do you mean that you moved the sentence case “Wynyard railway station” to all-caps “Wynyard Railway Station” but that it should be moved back to the sentence case? If that’s the case, I can help – page moves can be tricky. Politanvm ^talk 20:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I moved it to all Caps, but it might need reverted, not sure. Might be regional. Could you walk me through the process? D97931478 (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What do I do about sandbox redirects, there doesn’t seem to be an option to delete them. Does it matter or should I blank them or just forget about them? Do they eventually just delete themselves?D97931478 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve just moved the article back to the sentence-case title. For complicated or technical moves, it’s probably best to just ask for help.

For your sandboxes, what you do is up to you. If you want to delete them, just add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page. You can read more about deleting your own user pages here: WP:U1 Politanvm ^talk 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentences

In regard to your edit on Alan Turing, please see WP:CONTEXTBIO. Neither ethnicity nor sexuality are considered relevant to the lead sentence and should not be added. Skyerise (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I caused any upset or offended anyone including the Estate of the late Alan Turing, no ill will was intended. In this case I believed my edit was particularly relevant in the lead as significant to the persons notability and within the editing guidelines. D97931478 (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Extreme Obscenity

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Extreme Obscenity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Extreme Obscenity

Hello, D97931478,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Snowycats, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged Extreme Obscenity for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Snowycats}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Snowycats (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Extreme Obscenity, you may be blocked from editing. Snowycats (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Extreme Obscenity for deletion

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

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

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

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Depictions of sexual activity" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Depictions of sexual activity. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12#Depictions of sexual activity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:43, 12 October 2021 (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).

D97931478 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I created the page Extreme Obscenity and it was nominated for speedy deletion for having no content. It was then nominated for a deletion discussion and the discussion was closed prematurely today without good reason as a speedy deletion without allowing the discussion to run for the full 7 days, a significant procedural error. The arguments for deletion are at best points of view, and at worst childish personal attacks. No editor despite their standing has the right to vandalise my personal page, hijack my account, or hack my computer. I am an editor in good standing and have not made any disruptive edits as my edit history shows.

There were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion as all issues raised were addressed without further complaint and my account was blocked to prevent me contesting the deletion. I am requesting I am unblocked to request a deletion review as the discussion was prevented with the reason A1, G1, and G11, which is wrong on all three counts. The deletion discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Obscenity cites original research and hoax suggesting which it is not as the references suggest that notable authors have used the term and continue to do so. Regarding a hoax I think the editor is trying to wind me up, it’s a concise, focused, encyclopaedic article relevant to the development and use of the English language, and notable to be in print on a number of occasions not just a website, as many single reference articles are.

The page is a good page and the few editors who voted to delete made comments that were not constructive or in the spirit of Wikipedia and encouraging a new editor to bring pages requiring work up to standard. As a new editor I expected encouragement and advice not vandalism.

From the edit history I suspect one or more of the delete voters were using socks to vote multiple times, playing devils advocate to get me blocked so I could not contribute to the discussion about the page I created, or request a deletion review. Surely I should be permitted to do that and I cannot do so while blocked. I am happy to remain blocked from editing if genuine concerns exist regarding the 64 reverted edits by a single editor but wish to request a deletion review of my page of extreme obscenity.

I should also point out that a number of minor punctuation edits have been reverted by a single user which can only interpreted as a personal attack. I have not taken the time to check all 64 but surely it is trolling or vandalism as the page creators made no objection. D97931478 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are a lot of things that you seem to misunderstand about Wikipedia and how it operates- procedure being one of them, as noted below. "Vandalism" being another. I don't see a reason here to unblock you at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2021 (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.

There were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion — this from the user who posted an unsigned uw-delete4 warning on my talk page (diff). I'd submit that, at the very least, their grasp of "procedure" falls well short of what is expected. El_C 14:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC) D97931478 (talk)

And blocking a user without giving a good reason based on fabricated evidence and lies is ok is it, and not vandalism. Behaviour like that deserves a warning, apologies for not signing but I am new to the ropes. D97931478 (talk)

The reason is WP:DE. The procedure to challenge deletion closures is WP:DRV. I neither "lied" nor "fabricated evidence." Making such unfounded claims, will greatly reduce the chances that your unblock request will be granted. A better chance would entail reviewing WP:GAB. Though, as a seemingly single-purpose account (who also seemed to have WP:GAME'd their confirmed status), I'm not sure if you'd be genuinely interested in pursuing that. So I suppose it'd be more Dunning–Kruger'ing about "procedure" and general WP:ASPERSIONS. Oh well. El_C 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RE declined request. I was blocked without due process to prevent me asserting my right to a deletion review. How am I expected to proceed without evading the block against me and ending my editing career in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D97931478 (talk • contribs)

By not doing it (WP:BE). By not being disruptive even while blocked (WP:DE). By not violating "procedure" even as you complain about proper procedure (WP:TE) — like by undoing the declined action of the admin reviewing your unblock request (which is strictly prohibited and expressly noted as such in the above template). A little self-awareness, please. Anyway, talk page access revoked. See below for your appeal options.

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.

El_C 15:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

---

For proper record keeping:

• User undoes the reviewing admin's decline of the unblock request (no edit summary) — 11:01, 12 October 2021.
• Unsigned comment that threatens block evasion — 11:07, 12 October 2021.
• Adds some nonsense about "threat of life" [etc.] which I did not retain — 11:13, 12 October 2021.

I think we're done here. El_C 15:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User socked with User talk:86.142.74.152. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:86.142.74.138 attempted to remove these comments. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D97931478. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 14:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)