User talk:1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel

Welcome!

Hello, 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Sorry, I reverted your addition to Wagner. That would need a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply that you were lying, and don't take that well (even if only in an edit summary). I assume good faith, I assume you may be right, ONLY: it needs a reliable source coming with it, in the article, not in your bookshelf. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did! Ok?

I'll see. Another of our many house rules: when you are reverted, don't revert back (even if you are 100% sure you are right), but discuss on the article talk page. WP:BRD - And on talk pages: please indent, and sign your posts by 4 tildes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy, for two reasons: some website saying that is not necessarily "reliable", and you absolutely need to format the reference from "bare url" to the standard of the article (which is of the highest quality Wikipedia has to offer). Please do that asap. Another wish: all capitals are regarded as "shouting", - you are forgiven the ones you did so far, because you may not have known, but please stop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Richard Wagner. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC) I did not do more than three reverts today. Please learn how to count.[reply]

You indent by typing a colon right? 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easy... It's not like I'm cursing anyone out or anything. 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to T series, 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. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 15:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The drama between Pewdiepie and T-Series is well-attested. A little TOO well-attested, perhaps. Look at this, too: :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PewDiePie_vs_T-Series#PewDiePie_2

If the drama is to be considered un-notable, the entire article linked above would need to be rewrote completely. 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Richard Wagner, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

You seem to be new to Wikipedia and have been making several edits which are perhaps in good faith but are nevertheless unconstructive. Please note that Richard Wagner is a featured article. Changes to it should be discussed on the talk page particularly when your additions have been reverted by multiple editors. As for your addition to Tuvalu, the domain issue is covered higher up in the article. Do not add something just because you saw it on Reddit, and especially the trivia you added without a reference and in a completely inappropriate tone of personal comment. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Voceditenore (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. I suggest don't mess with me again. 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tuvalu facts weren't just from Reddit, they were also in the Scholastic Kids Book of Records 2012, in the final trivia section. 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:1gel_2gel_3gel_4gel reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: ). Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2019 (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).

1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This has gone too far. Can I please be unblocked after, let's say, 7 days (or however long you feel is necessary) while I cool down? That'll teach me the lesson, and if you ever think I'm doing it again you have full rights to block me forever for real. I won't threaten anybody and instead I'll work to contributing nicely to the encyclopedia. Sorry for the threats and reverting, I understand that's wrong.

Decline reason:

I was going to reply with a suggestion that you wait a few months to ask again, and in the meantime edit some of English Wikipedia's sister projects, where you are not blocked, to demonstrate that you are able to edit in a collaborative way. See WP:SO. But in view of the discussion here, I will simply decline your unblock request. If you deny being a sock, you can still try the WP:SO route. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 7 March 2019 (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.

Note for the reviewing admin

Please see discussion at User talk:Favonian#Possible sock.... Favonian (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: @Favonian: I admit that while my intentions were good (in contrast to the "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" label), they weren't done in the best way, and the block is justified. Now, about the discussion, GDKARTANA is not me. He says crazy things "I be cruizin on dat tegel Also I'm not Cruzr OR BMX. Checkuser me to prove it!" I think that the "on-wheels" guy may be GDKARTANA. NOT me! Meanwhile I'll try editing dewiki while I wait 6 months. 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK it seems that the guy is a "long-term abuse" from Asia who loves to vandalize. I'm a German-American who loves to edit Richard Wagner with good intentions. Not the same. 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2019 (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).

1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is BUNK! I am NOT that longterm abuser and the merge is uncalled for. Don't believe me? Try running a CheckUser on me, the lack of technical relations to our IPs will speak for itself.

Decline reason:

I do not see a reason to unblock, sock or no sock. Talk page access revoked. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:34, 7 March 2019 (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.

Confirmed to GDKartana (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) among about 7 or 8 total accounts. @K6ka and Favonian: you all may know who it is. It’s some LTA or another. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]