User talk:RyanNavilius5

Welcome

Hello, RyanNavilius5, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

December 2016

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Transform fault have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Congratulations! You have received the Silver Medal Award for being the best Wikipedia contributor in Asia Month! Keep on editing! Wikipedia Staff

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 19)

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's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:RyanNavilius5/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! RyanNavilius5, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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) 22:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Qin Shi Huang

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Josvan Talk 07:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Granny Torrelli Makes Soup

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Granny Torrelli Makes Soup requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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. CatcherStorm ^talk 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit that introduces praise or promotional language to the Legalism (Chinese philosophy) article. On Wikipedia, we adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV) and avoid promotional language or puffery. Please read the NPOV policy page, as well as this page of language to avoid to better understand how to expand this article in a style suitable to an encyclopedia. If you have questions, please see the Help Desk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Public forum debate. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Erwin Rommel has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Erwin Rommel was changed by RyanNavilius5 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891914 on 2018-03-21T00:00:27+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Erwin Rommel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Erwin Rommel, you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Erwin Rommel. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should definitely be unblocked because the state of me being blocked comes from not citing my sources or factual errors. My editors and I will be working on improving our edits for the future.

Blocked again (2 weeks); the next block will be indefinite

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef

Per this edit,

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:04, 30 July 2018 (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).

RyanNavilius5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was drunk when I made my vandalistic edits.

Decline reason:

See WP:EBUR, where this is listed fifth on the list. If that's true, then you shouldn't be unblocked as you cannot control yourself when logged into Wikipedia. If it isn't true, then you cannot be trusted to participate in this project in good faith. Either way, you need to remain blocked. I am declining this request. If you choose to address the reason your were blocked and can explain what constructive edits you want to make, you may make another request. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2018 (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).

RyanNavilius5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am very sorry for making vandalistic edits to Wikipedia. I was unaware that Wikipedia required highly credible sources, which resulted in poor quality work.

Decline reason:

Of course you knew that Wikipedia requires credible sources - you have been here long enough and have been blocked enough times to understand that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2018 (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 that prior declined requests cannot be removed while the block is in effect. I have restored one. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you have removed declined unblock requests while you are still blocked, contrary to Wikipedia policy at WP:BLANKING. I advise that if you do it again you might lose access to this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]