User talk:RainbowBambi

November 2022

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Blowing Rock, North Carolina—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do it properly this time? Pilotnance (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Blowing Rock, North Carolina. 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. Thank you. Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Blowing Rock, North Carolina, you may be blocked from editing. Rusalkii (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do it properly this time? Pilotnance (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I was playing around with the page, which was an inappropriate use of my time. I recently updated the population report for Blowing Rock. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused. Pilotnance (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Blowing Rock, North Carolina. Zekerocks11 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do it properly this time? Pilotnance (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can you remove these? Pilotnance (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 28)

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 User:Pilotnance/sandbox 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) 14:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pilotnance! 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) 14:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 28)

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 User:Pilotnance/sandbox 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) 15:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing Rock, North Carolina

The grammar edit you made for the page, Blowing Rock, North Carolina, was incorrect. "At the 2021 census" is the correct way to cite the population. Best, Zeke (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i got confused, thanks Pilotnance (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Pilotnance!

Hello Pilotnance. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Pilotnance/sandbox

Hello, Pilotnance. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Pilotnance/sandbox, 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) 20:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Pilotnance/sandbox

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

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!} 16:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Cameron Nance

Hello, Pilotnance. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cameron Nance, 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) 21:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cameron Nance

Hello, Pilotnance. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cameron Nance".

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!} 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ElENdElA. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Enshittification—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ElENdElA (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 15)

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 submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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 User:Pilotnance/sandbox 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) 18:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Pilotnance

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Pilotnance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. KylieTastic (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I used ChatGPT to write a NEUTRAL article on Wikipedia's opinion toward's Donald Trump.-Pilotnance (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it's gone

--Pilotnance (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Its gone

Unexplained editing and other problems

The substantial majority of your edits have no edit summaries, and of the few that do, most appear to be automatically generated edit summaries, rather than ones which you have written. This makes it difficult to get any impression of what you are doing. The problem is compounded by the fact that, without any explanation from you, it is difficult to see any good explanation for a significant proportion of your edits. For example, in several articles you have removed possessives without any explanation at all, when they are clearly required by the context. Examples of this include replacing expressions such as "Desak's daughter" with expressions such as "Desak daughter" in the article Desak, replacing "Claire Voyant's song" with "Claire Voyant song" in the article Claire Voyant (band), and replacing numerous examples of "Pistoletto’s" "Pistoletto" in the article Blenheim Art Foundation. The only two possible explanations for that which I can think of are that English is not your first language and you are unsure about how English possessives work, or that it is deliberate vandalism. Obviously in either of those cases you should not continue to remove possessives, but if you gave edit summaries explaining what you were aiming to do, it would make it much easier to understand what the problems are. Also, of course, if there is some other explanation that I haven't thought of, then an edit summary briefly saying what it is would help. Furthermore, some of your edits look so much like vandalism that it is difficult to conceive of any other explanation; that applies, for example, to this edit, and perhaps even more to this edit.

Please always give edit summaries briefly explaining what your edits do. Also, of course, if some of your edits really have been vandalism, then don't continue in the same way. If you don't follow these requests then it is likely that you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me, I can ensure you that I am, in fact English, and the reason for these edits is that I am using the edit suggestion panel. My computer is auto-correcting the words, which as I now look back on do seem to be wrong. I am sorry, and will work to correct this. Pilotnance (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at those edits, and I assure you that I am not intentionally vandalizing these articles. I will work to double-check what my computer auto-corrects from this point forward. Thanks, again Pilotnance (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be some kind of autocorrection, but it makes sense now that you have said so. JBW (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I find the "suggested edits" feature very often leads to unhelpful editing. I don't recommend it. JBW (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I will probably think twice about solely relying on auto-correct now. Thanks, again Pilotnance (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

You need to go back and fix all the PROD nominations you have added. They all need to have the reason why you think the article should be deleted added to the template. If you don't they will be declined. ~ GB fan 17:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pilotnance (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but can you give me an example of how to do that? Pilotnance (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on edit on each article and in the line that says

|concern =

add the reason after the "=" you think that particular article should be deleted. ~ GB fan 17:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I am still trying to figure all that out. Pilotnance (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would go back and modify any reason that says "not enough info" or anything similar. That is not a reason to delete an article. That is a reason to edit the article and add additional info. It would probably be good to look at this list of reasons why we delete articles, WP:DEL#REASON ~ GB fan 18:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone declined all the PRODs. If you believe the articles should be deleted you will need to use WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

"Not enough info" is not a reason to delete an article. Most articles started as stubs and were expanded. See frog for example, the first available version is a one sentence stub and now it is a huge, featured article. I suggest you read WP:DEL-REASON before you propose or nominate any other articles for deletion. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you please tell me which article this is? RainbowBambi (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Spirit season deletion?

What do you mean "does not need a separate page" for 2000–01 Northern Spirit FC season?. It's just a club season article; these are allowed for national clubs at the time. FastCube (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be longer, or put it on the Northern Spirit FC page. RainbowBambi (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding improper template usage

Hello, thank you for your efforts to contribute towards Wikipedia, but please refrain from incorrectly using maintenance and PROD templates. For example, {{Expand section}} templates do not need to be added to the top of an article just because it is 'too short' (they are supposed to be used for sections within an article anyways), likewise with {{Proposed deletion}} templates. Additionally, {{Proposed deletion}} templates should be added within reason; proposing an article for deletion with the reason that it is "too short" or "probably a troll" (like you did with Bicycle Day (Psychedelic Holiday)) are not proper reasons, and I recommend you to read WP:DEL-REASON as well as WP:TC. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

Please stop the unnecessary proposed deletions. It's been mentioned to you several times and you continue to do it, such as your attempt on Bicycle Day (Psychedelic Holiday). You having never heard of something does not make it a "troll page." Thank you. Swinub (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another ridiculous prod added to Nigga with nothing but "troll/racist" added as as an afterthought concern (the two edits). This editor needs educating or blocking. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a African American woman, and I find this page offensive, please educate me on why this page exists. RainbowBambi (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an uncensored encyclopedia which contains any and (we're working on) all articles on notable subjects. There is nothing offensive about detailing the existence and use of an important word; it would however be extremely offensive to deny people access to learning this history. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for the clarification RainbowBambi (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Swinub (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for multiple disruptive edits, including what appear to be bad-faith PRODs.

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 ~~~~}}. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note:You may still directly particpate in the ANI thread referenced in the above section, but for now you cannot edit article space. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I made a bunch of stupid PRODs, which I first thought were helping fight vandalism, but I guess now were pointless, as the articles had all been reviewed. Please give me a HUGE second chance, and I promise to become a productive member of Wikipedia. Thanks,

Decline reason:

clearly trolling, per ANI thread. Reblocking indef with no talk page access. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2024 (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.

What edits to articles do you intend to make? 331dot (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you should be contesting your block over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RainbowBambi. --Yamla (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mainly grammar and spelling RainbowBambi (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling. 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. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]