User talk:Ilovemydoodle/old/2

Older comments available here (you may still comment there, but you may not start new discussions)

This page

It would be better for you to set up archiving of this page rather than save random pages in your userspace. Also, there are tools to archive discussions sooner if you don't like looking at something (smile). None of this is required, but if you're interested, you can ask questions at the WP:Help Desk or the WP:Teahouse. Some of the regulars at either forum will be better than I for this kind of thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: This is not an archive and not intended to be an archive. Thank you. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Double strikethrough/backend

Template:Double strikethrough/backend has been nominated for merging with Template:Dssplit. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stop

I'm going to reiterate what I already told you on Wikiquote. Stop doing things like this. It's disruptive and unnecessary and not at all helpful. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Module:RedactURL

Module:RedactURL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Module:Qssplit

Module:Qssplit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Quadruple strikethrough

Template:Quadruple strikethrough has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop. You ran into problems on wikiquote and now you are running into problems here. Please take the time to read WP:5P and all associated policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is a huge project and it's easy to make mistakes, even if your intentions are good. But if you continue with the path you are on, I'm afraid you are going to be blocked here. Slow down, read up on our policies and guidelines, and take things slowly. -- Yamla (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you ran into substantial problems here already. You self-disclosed that you are the user behind the disruptive edits at Special:Contributions/2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:0:0:0:0/64 (see block log here). Please be warned; that means if you don't knock off the disruptive edits here, you are likely to be quickly reblocked indefinitely. That'll practically be the end of the line for you here on en.wiki. So, slow down! Read the policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make useless edits, especially to other editors' user pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ilovemydoodle! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Recent Changes, 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) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double strikethrough

Template:Double strikethrough has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore redacted comments just because you don't understand why they were redacted

If a user in good standing redacts something without saying why, assume that they had a good reason. See also Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know, which explains that in such cases you can contact someone privately to ask that they explain their action. Restoring problematic content simply because you don't understand the reason for removal can be a form of disruptive editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked

You have been blocked from editing the "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia talk" namespaces for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Your latest post at WP:AN is at least the fourth as of late [1] [2] [3] that served only to waste the community's time. No matter how many times you're shot down, you're not seeming to get it, so let me simplify things: This is not a game. This is an encyclopedia. We are here to create and improve encyclopedia articles. I'm blocking you from projectspace for a month, in hopes that that will encourage you to focus on our encyclopedic mission, rather than useless technical proposals or 15-year-old revdel requests. There's lots and lots of work to do that much more directly helps our readers. Check out WP:BACKLOG; CAT:CN is a favorite of mine.

In addition, please know that if you ever engage in harassment like this again, I will indef siteblock you. (Please don't make me explain to you why that's harassment. Instead, take some time to think about why it is. If you can't figure it out, perhaps you shouldn't be editing.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Understood about the pointless questions, I will stop those. As for the other ones, they should've been asked on MediaWikiWiki (some of them have already been moved to better feedback). Also, is requesting revdels on old edits bad here? I see it all the time on Wikiquote. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to find, say, an egregious BLP violation ("John Doe is a pedophile" etc.), that may be appropriate to privately request revdel for, even if very old. However, for less extreme kinds of disruption (page full of obscenities or whatever), after long enough it's not worth the time of revdelling. And, as noted at AN, a legal threat isn't revdellable at all, regardless of age. But all of that, I hope, is something you won't be thinking about in the next month. All of these technical and policy-oriented back-office things exist in service of what we write, and I'm really hoping you'll spend some more time on that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Understood! But 1 month seems a little high, do you think you could shorten to one or two weeks? I feel like I mostly understand now, and will be much more careful in the future. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If in two weeks you can show me some quality encyclopedic contributions—whether that's one or several articles you've put a lot of work into, or a lot of articles you've put a small-to-medium amount of work into, or both—I will consider ending the block early. No promises. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]