User talk:Poxism

August 2020

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Names of large numbers for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Names of large numbers, you may be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Names of large numbers. - DVdm (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was adding more illions to the page, since it doesn't carry enough information about the largest illions that people have been wondering about. It is relevant. Poxism (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you think your contributions were helpful, there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was helping the article by adding more numbers. There are numbers many people have never heard and that it would be interesting to learn. We have heard of centillion, but not femtillion, etc.

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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't disruptive editing on the Names of large numbers article, I was adding more information. That article only contains about .001 of all illion numbers, as sites like Googology Wikia (googology.wikia.org) have over 10,000 pages. The article needs a tad bit of information to go... Poxism (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please only submit one unblock request at a time. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:32, 1 September 2020 (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.

Note: your source is not a wp:reliable source, which was explained to you with this comment on the article talk page, and with the above warnings here on your user talk page. You ignored all explanatins and warnings, and continued adding (1) content to the article and (2) inappropriate comments on the talk page. Your block was for disrupting the talk page with comments about inappropriate content. - DVdm (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Note: your source is not a wp:reliable source, which was explained to you with this comment on the article talk page, and with the above warnings here on your user talk page. You ignored all explanatins and warnings, and continued adding (1) content to the article and (2) inappropriate comments on the talk page. Your block was for disrupting the talk page with comments about inappropriate content. - DVdm (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Here are all my sources: https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Hotejillion https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Category:Numbers_by_Jonathan_Bowers https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Bowers https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Sbiis_Saibian https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Femtillion https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Killillion https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Megillion https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_googolisms/Class_4 https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_googolisms/Class_4 https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Category:Tier_4_-illion_numbers As you see this source is clear, Bowers is a wiki moderator, as well. The wiki has strict editing restrictions. Google "micrillion" or "femtillion" and find out. Poxism (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have already been told that your "sources" are not considered reliable. As you seem unwilling to accept this, it seems to me that you intend to carry on trying to add this unreliable information, and therefore to prevent further disruption I must decline your request. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:32, 1 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

You have already been told that your "sources" are not considered reliable. As you seem unwilling to accept this, it seems to me that you intend to carry on trying to add this unreliable information, and therefore to prevent further disruption I must decline your request. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC) My sources are reliable, google up Jonathan Bowers. He will come up, he will have a Polytope page as well as a few Google pages with all his illion numbers. Google up any random "hopedakillion" or something. Here is one: https://www.bing.com/search?q=femtillion&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=femtillion&sc=1-10&sk=&cvid=4ACB784C80E24758A5632A1F2E1109C8 Yo want to know what's beyond a thousand zeroes in a number, just accept my edits. A lot may have been wondering about this. It's not wrong to have a simple subtopic called "Numbers Beyond Millinillion". What if people want to wonder? I even mentioned the largest illion number, nonecxenultillion. People are most likely also wondering about that. It is simple to put it in a small table on the Wikipedia page Names of large numbers, then for everybody trying to search a thousand pages on a wiki. Poxism (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Refusing to listen, and arguing that clearly unreliable sources are reliable, is not the way to get unblocked - as you really should have learned when your previous unblock request was declined for the same reason. Before you consider making a new unblock request via UTRS, learn this: Community-generated content is *not* considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2020 (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.

Because of WP:IDHT and WP:SPA, I have revoked talk page access. Another admin will be along shortly to review the open unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.