User talk:Epochalypse2038

For the article, see Year 2038 problem

This is Epochalypse2038's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: TLauncher (February 18)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by KylieTastic was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epochalypse2038! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Time formatting and storage bugs, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Impossible sounds (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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)
reliable
secondary
independent of 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:Impossible sounds 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.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:TLauncher has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:TLauncher. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals

Your remarks about the "Year 4000 Problem" are already covered (just have a look at the last thread on this page). There is no need (in fact it it only confuses the issue) to duplicate this. Just in case the logic of the answers escapes you the year 3999 will not come for another 1976 years. Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The year 4000 problem is real.

Like this:

MMMCMXCVI

MMMCMXCVII

MMMCMXCVIII

MMMCMXCIX

IV

(On the last line I had to switch to Source mode because of the template. So Y4K is real.) Epochalypse2038 (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Quite apart from everything else there is not (and never has been) a "governing" rule that says you CAN'T render 4,000 as MMMM! (or for that matter Mↁ) - it just isn't part of the current "standard". For centuries no one had a "problem" with MMMCMXCIX being the largest number available because it wasn't. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But now MMMCMXCIX (3999) is the largest Roman numeral without vinculum. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with MMMM or Mↁ? (Or any of the other historical ways of writing 4000 without using vinculum? There are lots of them - that's the very reason none of them are standard). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They all fell out of use. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because none of them were needed. So has vinculum for that matter. It could be revived for this (or any other purpose) of course. We have 1,976 years to work something out! If 2038 (or any of the other "problems") really exist then solving them would fix any RN problems. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, year 2038 problem has nothing to do thing year 4000 problem. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y4K Epochalypse2038 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If every way to write 4000 in roman numerals fell out of use, then Y4K is real. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happens at the end of XII/XXXI/MMMCMXCIX. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turn off your computer before midnight on XII/XXXI/MMMCMXCIX. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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.

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 ~~~~}}. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may only have one account, but you're still continuing your previous disruption on Voiced velar tap, which you were previously blocked for. As written in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, sockpuppetry takes various forms, and continuing the same behaviour that led to blocks being placed on the various IP addresses you have used is a violation of the policy. Besides, a velar tap being impossible doesn't mean an article on it shouldn't exist. I haven't seen a unicorn, but unicorn sure exists. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:37, 26 February 2023 (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).

Epochalypse2038 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Also how is that sockpuppetry? Epochalypse2038 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sock puppetry is the inappropriate use of multiple accounts; please address this in your next request. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that sock puppetry, I have only one account. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2023 (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).

Epochalypse2038 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked, I will now edit software and fix typos. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 19:45, 26 February 2023 (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.

Reasons why your unblock request is weak:

you didn’t provide an actual reason
you didn’t acknowledge that you understand what sock puppetry is and why it’s bad
you have demonstrated issues with WP:CIR (see the nonsense deletion request I speedy closed) and WP:IDHT (see the above thread about the “year 4000 problem” where you are just arguing about a trivial issue for its own sake)

You should take these things into account and write a better request. Dronebogus (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (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).

Epochalypse2038 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for WP:sockpuppeting. I won't do that again. Can they unblock me? I will now only fix typos, revert disruptive editing and vandalism, edit sandboxes, my userpage and talk pages to avoid getting the second block. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 10:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2023 (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.

You say that you are sorry for the disruptive editing, but you are not blocked for disruptive editing. You are blocked for WP:sockpuppeting. Please, explain why you were using other accounts and/or IPs. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Now I am saying that I am sorry for WP:sockpuppeting. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I declined your request. It is not enough just to say you won't do it again (especially after you claimed you didn't do it). You have to persuade us that you understand the problem and that you will be editing constructively if unblocked. We don't need editors who only want to fix typos and edit sandboxes. That is not reason for unblocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy: Can you, plaese, provide some context here? I don't see any sockpuppet investigation. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Hi, yes. Epochalypse2038 is certainly the same person as the many IPs that have been editing Voiced velar tap disruptively. They used this exact same wording when appealing one of their previous blocked IPs, Special:Contributions/217.30.166.114. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:52, 26 February 2023 (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).

Epochalypse2038 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for editing Voiced velar tap and for breaking my first promise. This is my last promise: "I will never edit Voiced velar tap again" I will now edit software, add citations and create articles. Please accept this. I won't break my promises again. I won't edit Voiced velar tap again even when there is a typo to make sure that I will not get the second block. I won't do disruptive editing and anything listed in WP:DBLOCK. I won't give an air of WP:CIR. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At this point, your only chance for reinstatement is the standard offer. You've lost the community's trust. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:43, 27 February 2023 (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.

You've previously promised this back in January, only to break your promise. You clearly haven't the slightest intention of following through on your promises. --Yamla (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last promise: "I will never edit Voiced velar tap again." Epochalypse2038 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I never edit Voiced velar tap even when there is a typo. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Now I'm saying "I'm sorry for breaking my first promise". Epochalypse2038 (talk)

Please accept this. I want to edit software, add citations and create articles. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your overall contributions still give an air of WP:CIR, particularly your obsession with the “year 4000 problem” Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Epochalypse2038 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for doing that. I won't do that again. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Voiced velar tap

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Voiced velar tap, 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/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Voiced velar tap and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Voiced velar tap 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. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I please explain something really important about Epochalypse2038 ? 62.209.158.74 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find the administrators via gmail or any other form? Please this is important. 62.209.158.74 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Impossible sounds

Hello, Epochalypse2038. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Impossible sounds, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Impossible sounds

Hello, Epochalypse2038. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Impossible sounds".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]