User talk:Hgh1985

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hgh1985! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Creating an account, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at SS Politician. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please don't vandalize articles like you did at: [1], [2], [3]. Use the WP:sandbox if you'd like to make test edits. Some1 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm really sorry, but I could've swore I undid each test edit seconds after I saw the result. Hgh1985 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make test edits to articles in article space. That is what sandboxes are for. Test edits to articles in article space are usually vandalism, even if they are reverted immediately. Use a sandbox for test edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Los Angeles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World history. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Hgh1985. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

The Preview button is your friend

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, 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. PS: You can make it automatic that you are forced to make an edit summary! In your user preferences, go to "Editing" section, then the "Editor" subsection, then click "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary " Quisqualis (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Attempt to Game Extended-Confirmed

It appears, from your question at the Teahouse about extended-confirmed permission, and from the non-constructive edits that you have been warned about, that you are trying to game permissions. Be aware that extended-confirmed permission does not enable you to edit if you have been blocked. Any edits that you make in areas that are contentious topics will be viewed with caution. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Specifically, this edit] is unsourced and creates inaccurate information. Sundayclose (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at App Store (iOS/iPadOS), you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023: all claims need to be verified by a cited source; if not, they are Original research

Hello, I'm Quisqualis. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. Quisqualis (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles

Please stop editing medical articles. You have introduced serious errors in several of them. It takes expertise in biology and medicine to accurately edit medical articles. Clearly, you don't have that expertise. Medical articles have a higher standard for editing than many other Wikipedia articles. What we understand about human health and medicine is based on the basic science of biology, and biology is complex. You're creating a lot of problems that others have to clean up. There are many areas on Wikipedia where you can make good contributions, but not medical articles. Sundayclose (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. -- Quisqualis (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985, you have recently fallen afoul of good faith editing practices, creating an impression "an editor with a very recent history of overt vandalism asks about advanced permissions" of having prioritized your edit count over good editing judgment. I took note of this edit, which carelessly and gratuitously rewords an unambiguous phrase in a way which may create reader confusion. I can only guess why you chose to make that edit, but please cease making any more edits of that nature. While you appear to have studied English and are capable of generating comprehensible English prose, you do not seem to conceptualize with nuance in English, which makes the rewording of Wikipedia somewhat outside your area of competence.-- Quisqualis (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis His/her grammar change wasn’t even correct. The subject was advances; therefore, the correct verb tense is, indeed, have. (The previous tense.) I’m sorry if I tagged you incorrectly. Feel free to delete. I rarely use the discussion boards and not sure how. KaytieKay (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Test edits in other editors' user space

Why did you make test edits in someone else's user space: [4], [5]? That is a policy violation, unless you created a second account. Did you create another account with that username? You need to explain this. Sundayclose (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, yes I admit I did make that other account and I have evidence that I made it if you need it, I wanted to see how notifications worked from user to user and if those notifications sent to the assigned emails, which they did, but I never knew it was a policy violation, and I will not do that again if it is. Hgh1985 (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See? Quaker1889 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to create second account simply to make test edits. Use a sandbox. More importantly, the use of multiple accounts outside of established policy for doing so is known as sockpuppetry, and is not permitted. For example, multiple accounts may not be used to comment on proposals or requests, cast votes, or engage in edit warring. Because policies apply to individuals, not accounts, blocked or banned users must not use sock puppets to circumvent a block; doing so will result in an extension of the block or ban. Inappropriate use of multiple accounts can result in loss of editing privileges. There are only a very few reasons someone would have multiple accounts, and using more than one account requires disclosure on the user pages for both accounts. If you simply wanted to use the account for test edits, you need to have the second account deleted. See WP:HOWTODELETE for this process. Don't ignore this or you could be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so what do I request on that page to prevent this account from getting blocked? Do I log into the second account and request it be deleted from it's talk page? Hgh1985 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, read WP:HOWTODELETE, specifically the section "Pages you created yourself". Place the request for deletion on the user page for the second account, along with an explanation for why it should be deleted. Sundayclose (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 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).

Hgh1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please give me another chance, I really sincerely want to improve Wikipedia. Hgh1985 (talk) 03:28, 15 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. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 15 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.