User talk:Lo1vesedi2ting

Welcome!

Hello, Lo1vesedi2ting, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It looks like you used to revert a lot of my edits before. An example is dog, where you reverted one of my edits. It was when I edited the synonyms part. I added a link to canis lupus in the name canis lupus familiaris like this; Canis lupus familiaris. I don't know why you reverted those edits. I also did this with many other domestic animals, including cattle, goat, etc. Many of the reverts were made by you, & you did this more articles. Bye! Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Just tagging you in here so you can see these questions, since you might not be watching this talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're talking about. UtherSRG is supposed to reply to me, not you. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to UtherSRG - my goal was to "mention" their username to tell them about your message (Help:Notifications#Mentions). Dreamyshade (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to take me to UtherSRG's talk page? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamyshade: Thanks.

@Lo1vesedi2ting: Several things. You do not seem to understand how many things work here. I strongly suggest you take a break from editing and click into the links above and read them. All of the edits you made were either unhelpful or against the MOS in some way. I see Dreamy answered many of your questions below, but you still then wanted to ask me the question above. You do not seem to be comprehending how things are done here. Also, even though Dreamy answered why they mentioned me here and provided you a link to understand how that is done, you still responded to them with more lack of understanding. Again, please slow down and do some research before responding so that you don't continue to make poor choices. If you continue to edit in this manner despite being instructed on how to educate yourself in what you have done incorrectly, you risk having your editing privileges revoked as disruptive. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already read the first 2 links, the introduction & the 5 pillars. I also don't have to mention you because I can tap on the reply button. If I tap on a reply next to your message, then you'll see it. If I tap on a reply next to Dreamyshade's message, then she'll see it. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you UtherSRG, I think you made some really good points there.

Lo1vesedi2ting, it can be challenging to make formatting or metadata changes (like hatnotes, infoboxes, etc) in mature, well-established articles, like many articles about animals, because there are so many detailed Manual of Style guidelines underlying a lot of existing decisions - basically, in many cases, the article already follows the Manual of Style.

Consider branching out to work on less mature articles that need citations and expansion? For example, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates and see the links at right to Primate stubs and Cleanup listing. That may help you find some good projects to work on. There are also a lot of good resources there, like this article format guide: Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Article format.

For example, looking around from there, I found this interesting article that needs more citations: deception in animals. A lot of the sentences aren't cited to a source, so you could do some research to find good citations in journal articles. I'd personally start by checking out the existing citations and see if they can be reused to cite additional material, along with reading the articles in the "Further Reading" section and seeing if they could be used as citations. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you already know that I wanted to work at that WikiProject? I don't know how you knew that I wanted to fix primate articles. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already read the next 2 links. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a primate article that has many issues, & it's the african apes. It had 3 issue templates, 1 of them saying that it needs to be updated, & the other 2 need additional citations. One of those sections that had issues had a [citation needed] template, so I copy & pasted the whole sentence, & google books took me to a book that said exactly the same thing. So I tried to add a citation, & then I fixed it. That means that I could work on WikiProject Primates! Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but if you look at the book's description in Google Books and look up the publishing company, it's not a reliable source - it's a self-publishing company, and the text of that page appears to be copied from Wikipedia. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources to learn more about identifying reliable sources. This is also why reusing existing sources can be a helpful strategy.

Part of why working on Wikipedia is interesting and rewarding (at least for me) is that it can require a fair bit of research - it's often not easy, but it's worth it! Dreamyshade (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already know you reverted my edit because of that, & I would like to know, what is it called when Wikipedia relies on a source that relies on Wikipedia as a source, or that both sources rely on each other? I also have another question & it's that if Wikipedia editors can use it's sister projects as a source? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the golden rule for a nice short essay on this. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so Wikipedia can rely on it's sister projects because the essay didn't talk about it's sister projects? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia can not use other Wikis as source. We can utilize the same sources they can, but not the wikis themselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia use other wikis as a source that are not made by the Wikimedia Foundation? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no. Nor generally are blogs allowed either. See WP:RSP for some discussion and a list of often used sources and whether they are allowed or not. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've formatted the Bibliography at Homininae and turned it into a "Further reading" section. You may want to read these journal articles and see if any of the "expand" tags (or other sections of the article) can be fulfilled with informaiton from these journal articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me that. I didn't know that you could use external links as additional sources. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you think they wouldn't be? In fact, internal links are never good enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't exactly work that way. The reply button sets up a reply edit window and saving text in that window notifies anyone who is subscribed to that section of talk page. People who are not subscribed will not be notified unless they are mentioned or the user if it is the user's talk page. The reply link is not the same as the {{reply to}} template. I agree with Dreamyshade; finding articles in need of work is a good place to get started. And yes, working first in your sandbox is an excellent way to figure out how things work. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you subscribe my talk page? Also, I've tried to look for those articles that have issues, but most of them need more citations, & sometimes it's hard to cite. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried editing my sandbox about an hour ago before I replied. I think it's helpful because you can edit anything in the sandbox without making bad edits to other articles. Thank you! Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already read all of those links above. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editing

Hi Lo1vesedi2ting! I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your question - can you give me an example of a page where you want to make that kind of change? Also, for edits that involve complex formatting, sometimes it's easier to go into "source" editing mode and make changes there (and make sure to look at the "preview" before saving), instead of trying to use the "visual" editing tool. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to edit "Animal". I don't know why it's so hard to edit a table. This also happens with other tables. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is too hard for me, teach me how to do source editing. I also have a hard time making citations in visual mode. I don't even know how I can make images in source mode. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was editing baboon, & I think it's true that source mode is sometimes easier, just like you told me. I didn't know how to delete a template in visual mode, but then I switched to source mode. Deleting the template in source mode was easier than in visual mode because I only had to delete the words that made the template. Thank you for teaching me how to make edits easier. Bye! Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some editing tutorials available from Help:Introduction for both the visual editor and the source code editor, including about handling images, tables, and references.

Also, it looks like some of your recent edits have been reverted by other editors, so I'd suggest reviewing your recent contributions carefully, and looking at changes that other editors have made after your edits, so that you can make better edits going forward. Here's what I'm seeing, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phycis_phycis&diff=prev&oldid=1192127454 - "Does not redirect here"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galago&diff=prev&oldid=1191658343 - "Not needed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loris&diff=prev&oldid=1191658125 - "Taken care of"

Getting reverted is a normal part of the process of editing Wikipedia, so I wouldn't be discouraged, I'm just encouraging watching out for these changes and learning from other editors. I get corrected too sometimes, even after a zillion years on here. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the first one. How does Sweyn Forkbeard redirect to phycis phycis, but phycis phycis doesn't to Sweyn Forkbeard? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the template page for "redirect", which has details that explain what it means and how to use it: Template:Redirect. I highly recommend clicking all the links there to learn more about redirects and related guidelines.

In this case, you can also do an experiment to learn more: try going to the page titled Forkbeard and see that it literally redirects you to the page titled Sweyn Forkbeard. So then, you see that page about the king has a little "hatnote" that tells you about the fish page in case that's where you were trying to go when you typed Forkbeard. But if you go to phycis phycis, you presumably got there by looking up the fish somehow, and you don't need to be told about the king with a similar name. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's go to the next one. For the common name galago & loris, the scientific name is galagidae & lorinae. For the scientific name galago & loris, the common name is lesser bushbaby & slender loris. So the common name is redirecting to the scientific name. I also did the same thing with lemur. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Hatnote carefully, especially the "Length and number" section (WP:1HAT), since I suspect the other editors who reverted your changes are thinking about those general guidelines.

For galago, you'd probably have to ask the editor who responded "Not needed" about why exactly they thought the hatnote wasn't needed (you could ask on Talk:Galago), but I'm guessing it's because the article covers that information in the "Taxonomic classification and phylogeny" section. Looks like for loris, the person thought the existing hatnote was sufficient.

Next time you want to make a change to a hatnote, you could try writing on the article talk pages with your suggestions for making changes, to see if people respond with an interesting reason to keep the article the way it is - or they may agree with your improvement! Dreamyshade (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me more edits that I got reverted? Also, the "For" template comes before the taxobox, so why did I get reverted if a link that is on a word must be on the first time the word takes place in the article? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also have another question. I was on an article of Wikipedia about platonic solids. There was an external link issue template at the end of the article. Should I remove all external links that say "Not Secure" when I click on them? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at your edits that got reverted by going to Special:Contributions/Lo1vesedi2ting, identifying the ones that say "Reverted", and clicking the "hist" links to see the history of the article. After you find your edit in the edit history list, look for edits made afterward. You can also check out this guide to viewing article histories: Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/4

Looking at Platonic solid#External links, try clicking and reading the guidelines linked in the message, especially Wikipedia:External links, and especially the "What can normally be linked" section (WP:ELYES) and "Links normally to be avoided" (WP:ELNO). The message is asking you to evaluate the links in the article against those guidelines. In those guidelines, I don't see any discouragement against non-secure links, so I wouldn't use that as criteria for which links to keep.

Looking at your other recent edits, I would also encourage reading the "Manual of Style" guidelines about adding links to other articles, especially the section about overlinking: MOS:OVERLINK. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why does it say not secure? Does it have to do with external links on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have an article on not secure external links? I already know where I can find all of the edits I've made, I just want you to show me more reverted edits so that you can tell why my edits got reverted. I also don't understand what you were talking to me about the fish & the king. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "not secure" warning is unrelated to Wikipedia - it's a message from your browser (such as Chrome or Firefox, or whatever you use), and it means that the website does not offer a secure connection - here's an article with more explanation. Wikipedia has an article about the relevant technology (HTTPS).

Are you able to find more reverted edits on your own using my instructions? Can you tell me where you get stuck while looking for reverted edits? Here's an example process:

I look at Special:Contributions/Lo1vesedi2ting
I scroll down below the edits we've already talked about, and I see a line the includes the word "reverted":
- 14:57, 17 December 2023 diff hist +46‎ Ring-tailed lemur Tags: Reverted
I click the "hist" link and get here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ring-tailed_lemur&action=history
I scroll down to find your edit (currently the third one in the history list), and I look at the edit above it. I see the edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ring-tailed_lemur&diff=prev&oldid=1190446296 which has the edit summary "That does not redirect here"

Can you tell me more about what you don't understand about the forkbeard example? It was based on your edits. I would encourage reading the guidelines about redirects: Wikipedia:Redirect. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question about boxes in articles. Do boxes need to have a lot of links even if the same link occurs before the box? For example, a template that redirects galago takes you to a link before the box does. But does the subdivision part always need to take you to the article about the genus even if it's not the first time the link occurs in the article? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking to learn more about what should be linked where. Along with the useful section on overlinking that I shared above (MOS:OVERLINK), check out the section on "Duplicate and repeat links" (MOS:REPEATLINK). You can also learn more about infoboxes here, including guidelines and goals for how they are formatted: Help:Infobox.

I know I'm suggesting a lot of guideline pages to you. :) This is because a lot of the answers to your questions are a bit complex, and it's more effective for you to go directly to the real guidelines instead of me trying to explain something myself. In general, I believe the most important thing about being an experienced Wikipedia editor is that even though I'm not an expert on any specific guideline, I know that there are a lot of guidelines and I know to go look for the relevant ones. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to change mentor? You were assigned as my first mentor since I created this account. Also, I would like to know if we can choose our own mentors instead of getting random mentor. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to answer questions, it's just that part of the answer is to direct you to the guidelines that really answer your question. New editors are randomly assigned mentors, but you can also ask for help in other places, such as the Teahouse: Wikipedia:Teahouse. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I find experts at the teahouse? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe! They're other editors like me who have offered to help newcomers. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing the Forkbeard experiment you told me to do & it looks like I understand now. First, I tried searching up "Forkbeard" at Wikipedia, & then I tapped on the "go" button. It took me to Sweyn Forkbeard instead of phycis phycis. Is that the experiment you wanted me to do? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad you tried it! That's an example of a "redirect" - you entered "Forkbeard" and got redirected to "Sweyn Forkbeard". Dreamyshade (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try doing a galago & loris experiment just like you did with Forkbeard? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New World Encyclopedia doesn't meet WP:RS criteria

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikipedia detect unreliable sources? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The particular source is part of an edit filter because it's frequently used by an WP:LTA account. Read WP:RS and see WP:RSP for more documentation on reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was my sandbox, not a real Wikipedia article. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hello, Lo1vesedi2ting,

Please be careful about moving pages. There needs to be a very good reason to move a page and you shouldn't be moving around other editor's User pages. I corrected your mistake but it's best if you just leave articles, drafts, redirects and user pages where they are until you become a more experienced editor. I see I'm not the first editor/administrator who has questions about your editing so it's best to take things slow. And if you have any questions about editing on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. Disambiguation pages need to have () in them, not /. Also, why do users even need disambiguation pages? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a disambiguation page, it was a user subpage where they had notes about disambiguation. But regardless: Do not move other user's pages. If you are confused about something, ask them on their talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Lo1vesedi2ting, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a newcomer? I've edited almost 200 times! Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of understanding of how things work and how to interact with other users marks you as a newcomer. And 200 edits is a very very small number. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At what number of edits do you stop being a newcomer? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to ask, you are still a newcomer. If you keep having to be instructed on how to behave in the community (such as below), you are still a newcomer. It's not about the number of edits (although it is one of the few metrics we can easily look at). It's about the quality of your participation. The longer you stay a newcomer - the longer you keep having to be instructed not to cross various behavioral boundaries - the less patience the community will have with you over time. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the most important rules to follow in Wikipedia? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should ask that on WP:Help desk. You'll get several perspectives, and it depends on a lot of factors. Are you asking about talk page behavior? Rules about edit an article? Etc. Best rule of thumb: Ask before doing. That covers everything else. Better than that is to check the help links you've already been given (in the Welcome! section above) to see if your question is easily answered that way. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "very very" because you've made MORE THAN 100000 EDITS compared to LESS THAN 1000 EDITS. You created you're account MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO compared to LESS THAN AN YEAR AGO. You're even an AUTOPATROLLED ADMIN compared to a SIMPLE AUTOCONFIRMED USER. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, I've been around the block a few times. So... why are you shouting in all caps? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just want to tell you that you have WAY MORE RIGHTS than me on Wikipedia. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? This is not news to me. What is your point? And why are you still shouting? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably edited so many times because you have so many things to do, including things like blocking users, deleting pages, & protecting pages. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those things aren't only for you, they're for ALL admins. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I make plenty of productive edits outside of my admin duties. And activities such as deletions, blocks, and protections aren't counted in the edit count. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Lo1vesedi2ting, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't want to irritate the users, I just want to make it look better. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the job of the user connected to the user talk page, if they want to do so. If they think they need to resection or revise the talk for their own use, they would do so. At any rate, others' user talk pages are not articles free for editing. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower: This was their edit. It was on their own talk page, but it was reformatting others' comments. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case yes. But this has been happening on other users' talk pages. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And note this edit, after I requested they don't reformat the discussion I started. If Kanashimi wanted to combine discussions, it's their purview to do so but not other editors'. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't looked at their full contribution list, and I should have. 4-6 weeks of dealing with this editor's issues, I think I've been more than patient. Time for them to have a forced break... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even give me a warning with a stop sign, so why am I blocked? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like, no warning? That's not how it works. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are not absolutely required before an admin action is taken. Sometimes actions are taken when a less-than-constructive behavioral pattern is detected. From my perspective, your disruptive reformatting of discussion on another user's talk page may lead some to believe you're not quite here to build an encyclopedia, and that's on top of your disrespect of others' opinions that the reformatting isn't proper or necessary. At any rate, you have two weeks to think about why you are here and how you would like to contribute to encyclopedia development. Alternatively, if you come to an understanding of what you need to do sooner, and can make a case that demonstrates that, you can appeal the block per the link given above. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to build an encyclopedia. The problem is that some edits are disruptive. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a user blocked with no warning on its talk page. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle bit of advice: trying to dispute the blocking process is not a great way to get unblocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we have to try to get along with each other and listen to each other. A better way to get unblocked is to take the opportunity to take a break for a couple weeks, come back, re-read the advice on your talk page with an open mind, and see what you can do to make small, constructive edits and ask for guidance before trying something new. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just really weird that I had no warning. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you even mean by that? How do you think it's okay to get blocked with no warning that I was going to get blocked? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:BEFOREBLOCK for some background: "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these...However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking."

I can't speak for @UtherSRG, but it looks like they considered the pattern over the past few weeks of editors needing to give you guidance about taking more care and doing more research about relevant guidelines before making edits. A two-week block isn't meant to be a big deal - it's a chance to take a step back and review before moving forward. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lo1vesedi2ting Please don't email me to try to continue the discussion while you are blocked. Please just re-read this conversation and read related policies and guidelines. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamyshade: They emailed me a few days ago as well. This is not looking promising for them. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your email to me

No, I will not sign you up for the NC Wikipedia Day. I think it would be a bad idea for you to go. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if I go without doing that? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with Wiki Day. I do not suggest going since you are blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's gonna happen? Will they know about my block? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of a temporary block is to take a two-week break from Wikipedia and come back with a fresh perspective, so it could make sense to skip any events as part of that break. It looks like the NC group has its own mailing list, so you could ask the organizers what they think. They also seem to meet regularly, so even if you don't get a chance to go to that event, there will likely be other opportunities. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you are blocked, the only discussion that should happen on your talk page is about appealing your block. So.... - UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop emailing me. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you abused your talk page privileges and I revoked that access, I extended your block time. You have exhausted my patience by emailing me again. Your block timer will now be reset. Enjoy the next 2 weeks off. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have another two weeks for emailing me again. Next time will be an indefinite block. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. UtherSRG (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]