User talk:Shāntián Tàiláng

	; Archives ;
	No archives yet.
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Shāntián Tàiláng, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Paperboy. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 22:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Please read the guidelines regarding the use and respect of verifiability and original research and ensure that when editing Wikipedia you are not acting in contravention of those policies. The "updates" you just made to List of Google Easter eggs included original research that now invalidates the sourced claims; although I have followed you with some {{Failed verification}} tagging, that should and will not satisfy for long. The claims you have changed either need new "updated" sources, or to be reverted to sourced figures. Welcome to Wikipedia. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Germanic name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Oscar, Ealhmund, Alcmund, Aldwin and Pandulf

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic name, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wolfram and Wulfstan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UGC 12682, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SDSS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Dryden (writer, born 1668), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthias Kadar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nieuwe Kerk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sejanus

Xe xe xe for the explanation (and consequent thanks). What was also needed was the addition of the explanation about the coin to the text of the subsection where it is also pictured. I've seen to that now. Sweetpool50 (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Matthias Kadar

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.

A tag has been placed on Matthias Kadar, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. I'm notifying you as you seem to have done some work on the page at one point. Themillofkeytone (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	That's some quality wikignoming of citations on Biosphere 2. I visited Biosphere 2 in 2010 and I'm a big fan. — Smuckola (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Château-Thierry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Schneider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Escape (1948 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brighton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beorhthelm.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Narrative poetry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crank.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaime Maussan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Global 500.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Talaat Pasha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zero-day (computing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symantec.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nares (disambiguation)

Please note that disambiguation pages like Nares (disambiguation) are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism

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.

A tag has been placed on User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/X is harmful userboxes. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All better now. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, @Chess:, am I allowed to change the text from "This user is an atheist and fears that religion might have a scary effect on societies" to "...religion might be harmful to society" (as I had it at an earlier point in the change-up process), or to "...religion might be harmful to societies"? Just curious. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion was because it just duplicated a userbox that was already deleted at MfD. Changing the userbox significantlh means that procedurally the speedy deletion template no longer applies. I'd suggest reading WP:UBCR for what is and isn't recommended. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism

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.

A tag has been placed on User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/X is harmful userboxes. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Hey, I just want to let you know I withdrew the nomination. I am instead seeking input on how to proceed. It is not fun to get a speedy deletion nomination twice in one day. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism

User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the today template in refs

Hi, I noticed you using Template:TODAY for access-date in refs. If you're using that template to show when you accessed the source, please substitute it; otherwise, the date in the ref will update each time the article is viewed, so it will be inaccurate and unhelpful if the source disappears and an editor has to track down an archive version. Please see Help:Substitution#Limitation for instructions on substituting the template in refs. (A simpler method is simply to type the actual date.) Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates

Hi, please be sure to propose new stub templates and categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals before creating new ones in the future. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960s compilation album stubs

A tag has been placed on Category:1960s compilation album stubs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1950s compilation album stubs

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s compilation album stubs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Removing a relevant category link on a page. 176.109.163.38 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I thought it was redundant. And why aren't you signed up (for an account) or logged in?? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:IP users. Users don't need an account to edit.176.109.163.38 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that already. I just mentioned it 'cause what I did earlier doesn't generally merit trout-whacking. (Right, @Scorpions13256: & @SuperSkaterDude45:?) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really in my view especially as its a pretty minor change that doesn't warrant trouting and nothing in WP:TROUT says so though I'm wondering why I got mentioned for this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure who to ask, that's all. You'd left messages on my talk page before, that's how I knew about you. It wasn't...rando tagging. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard and Maurice McDonald

Hi. Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with these edits to Richard and Maurice McDonald, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. I know you don't edit here that often, but you've accumulated over 5,000 edits since 2018, so I'm assuming you may have learned by now that Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

Also, regarding this edit, per WP:HYPOCORISM, hypcorisms (a diminutive or abbreviated version of their given name), it should not be presented in the opening line of the Lead. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock tags

Hello, is there a reason why you are adding tags to blocked sockpuppets? -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What tags, exactly? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing you are adding {{sock}} tags to blocked editor's userpages. Most of the time there is a reason WP:SPI clerks or CheckUsers do not add tags to sockpuppet userpages. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that? I just wanted to ensure that each account gets listed under, say, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nsmutte or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Angela Criss. (Especially since some of the userpages had never even been created beforehand.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention—on WP:DENY it says: "User pages of indefinitely blocked users (except sockpuppets and banned users) that have no practical purpose can be nominated for deletion as such after a short while." (emphasis mine) Also, "In general, 'socktags' on blocked sockpuppets' user pages should only be added, removed, or modified by administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks."
So is it OK if I re-create a previously deleted userpage just to add {{sockpuppet}}? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If there was no sockpuppet template added when they were blocked it was probably intentional. You can always ask the blocking administrator if it was an error but in my experience it doesn't hurt to ask. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, can I simply add Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nsmutte instead of {{sock|Nsmutte|confirmed}}? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the category is acceptable, just make sure it is the correct sockmaster. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1055388703

Hi, the automatic categorising in {{Script installation text}} no longer seems to work: [1]. ― Qwerfjkl talk 17:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry about that, I'm not sure how to get a template to do auto-categorizing without also categorizing itself in the same way. And why on Earth did you put <noinclude /> in the middle of all the {{subst}} instances?? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and talk page ownership

Hi there. Please do not use edit summaries such as you did here. Please also be aware of WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. Any user is allowed to remove content from their own talk page without any permission from the original poster, with very few exceptions, such as declined unblock appeals. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-binary people categories

You should probably read WP:GENDERID because Category:Non-binary people of female sex and Category:Non-binary people of male sex are not okay. That's not how Wikipedia or reliable sources categorize people. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you already have a category for Intersex non-binary people, and these two new categories are meant to differentiate sex from gender. In case you're wondering, I am going by the Genderbread Person's definition of "sex". Besides, Category:Non-binary people of female sex does not say anything about whether the person identifies as a woman or not, only that they are of female sex, as opposed to male or intersex. I mean, both you and I know sex =/= gender. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a non-binary person, I agree with Woodroar that these categories are inappropriate. I was assigned female, but I am not of the "female sex". It's misgendering. Funcrunch (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But reliable sources almost never report on a person's genitalia and chromosomes, so it's inappropriate to make that determination yourself. Woodroar (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Woodroar:, note that this is for non-binary people only. Remember, MANY reliable sources dated before each person came out as NB do (sort of) refer to the sex of that person (that is, by the pronouns used by that person at the time). And why on Earth isn't there a category for "non-binary lesbians"? See, those people are all of female sex. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, @Funcrunch:, I already know you're a male nonbinary person. (Male sex, NOT gender.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agender and I would consider my sex to be trans male, not simply male. Regardless, I have started talk pages on the respective articles and suggest we continue the discussion there so that others can weigh in. Funcrunch (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Funcrunch:. Can you also start a discussion about those categories in general (e.g. non-binary lesbians)? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm curious about this: When non-binary people date each other, do any of their, uh, courtship rituals involve trying to find out what sex the other person is? (I'm thinking like the dwarfs (Discworld) who always present as men and consider it very rude for any dwarf to present as a woman, even when that dwarf is a female like Cheery Littlebottom. I haven't been able to find that question in any NB-related FAQ lists. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shāntian tread carefully. This is not the place to get sex-ed nor inquire on nb's dating habits or sexual practices. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to echo A. C. Santacruz's warning. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to start discussions on sensitive subjects to satisfy your curiosity. Take that to Reddit or some other platform. Making a blunder in this subject area can result in a block for a long duration as it is subject to discretionary sanctions.

Please leave this matter alone and edit on the millions of other subjects that exist on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions 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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

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.

Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Latin-script trigraphs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urquhart.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally inappropriate

Tagging me or any other Wikipedia editor on a page like this is totally inappropriate, regardless of your stated intentions. Don't do it again. Funcrunch (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also a BLP violation, because it specifically mentions Layshia Clarendon. Woodroar (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I got rid of the mentions & tags. You happy now? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just commented them out. I've now removed them. Funcrunch (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music stub template sorting

Hi. Why are you sorting the templates in Category:Music stub templates by Q, V, and Y? For example, why is Template:1990s-pop-album-stub sorted by "Q" while Template:2000s-pop-album-stub is sorted by "V"? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's just because "Q" and "V" are unused sections, and I want to declutter the "0-9" section. The "Y" ones are for individual years, while "Q" is for decades in the 2nd millennium and "V" for decades in the 3rd millenium. Hope you're all right with that. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because no one else will understand it. I'll try to think of something better. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editor Mare-Silverus et al

Hello Shāntián Tàiláng, in light of your edit comment over at the Hitaikakushi article, I wanted to let you know that I've recommended a sockpuppet investigation for Mare-Silverus and GinNike0000 and several of the IPs that I suspect are this user. If you know of any additional IPs or user accounts, please add them there.

Considering that the checkuser investigation over at EN Wikt showed pretty conclusively that these are the same person, I expect a similar outcome here. Whether their behavior at EN Wiki has been troublesome enough to warrant a block, however, is outside of my ken -- I have spent considerably less time involved in processes and patrolling here than at Wiktionary.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 02:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Speaking of EN Wikt and my time there, I gotta cop to the "block evader" part, but I ain't no sockmaster, Eirikr. Hey, maybe if you (or somebody with the authority to do so) had added a Draft namespace to Wiktionary, that would've prevented me from being blocked in the first place? Because with a Draft namespace, I could've created those Chinese entries for you, RcAlex36, Fish bowl, or Justinrleung to review before actually publishing them in the Main namespace. Not quite as disruptive, don't you think?
See, I REALLY want to put my Wiktionary block-evading behind me. Think like the Joker did: his real name doesn't matter anyone, since it's past.
Anyway, hope you have a good day! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A brief question

@Surjection: I'm sorry for editing your talk page.

But in the future, could you please put a template on your talk page asking people to not edit your talk page? (I can't recall the exact template, but I'm sure there's one. If not, I'm sure you can create some kind of notice.)

And for context, here are the 3 messages I left on Surjection's talkpage, in case anyone (say, Svartava (talk · contribs · email) or Eirikr (talk · contribs · email)) wishes to know what I tried to tell him:

A question

Hello, I don't know how else to ask this, but is there any possible way for me to get unblocked from Wiktionary? Yes, I realize I have to own up to the "block evader" part, but I think the initial block (the one given for disruptive edits) could have easily been avoided if Wiktionary had a "Draft" namespace like Wikipedia already does, so that I could create tentative Chinese or Japanese entries for other editors to review (instead of "[wasting time] on running behind with a mop and a shovel to clean [up] after [bad edits]", as Chuck Entz (talk · contribs · email) put it).
And by the way, on my Wiktionary talk page, when RcAlex36 (talk · contribs · email) and justinrleung (talk · contribs · email) gave me warnings about my inaccurate Chinese definitions―why did they not just emphasize how much of a complete waste of their time it was for them to rewrite my inaccurate entries? Because that, I think, would have at least made me feel some remorse for making those entries in such a frivolous manner.
Also, if you can get a hold of RcAlex36 (talk) (I tried to contact him on his Wikipedia talk page but got no response), can you please tell him that if my block evasions showed that I had (at the time) no remorse for my actions, he should've noticed that lack of remorse before the block, back when I continued to make Chinese entries that I was unfamiliar with despite his warnings. Then maybe he could've used that to give a more efficient warning that explained just how much of a burden it placed on him to clean up my disruptive edits. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexed

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean by "no, you're not fooling anyone"??
Trust me, I really wish to be a Wiktionary editor again, and this time in a non-disruptive way.🥺 I'll need your help to do that, not just because you're a Wiktionary admin, but because I will need your input if I am ever to improve myself (and not just when it comes to Wiktionary!).

Notwithstanding my inaccurate edits, why can't a "Draft" namespace simply be added to Wiktionary? I'm sure adding a namespace takes quite some time, but, truly, why can't the powers-that-be add specifically a "Draft" namespace, as opposed to, say, "Rhymes"? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

I really hate to have to ask you this, but can you please explain why you removed both of my messages without bothering to even leave a message on my talk page in response to any of the questions I asked?
Somehow, that feels more evasive (for me; maybe not for you) than my block evasions on Wiktionary (which I already confessed to, so it's pointless for you to say that I'm "not fooling anyone").
Or, you could just say "I'll get back to you later" or something. Remember, I need certain stuff spelled out to me; please don't assume I know all the rules (especially when there's no "Wiktionary:Disruptive edits" page like there is here). You know what they say: "Nothing about us without us"; I think that should apply to me as well (since I have autism and ADHD, no really). Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you're interested, I did not do these edits, but judging by this anonymous talkpage that pinged me (I managed to save it in the Wayback Machine before it was deleted, that's why I mentioned Svartava above), I think some old coworker of mine in that IP range might be cyber-stalking me. (Yes, I once knew him; I'm unsure why he hasn't simply tried to contact me on my talkpage; maybe he has some other IP range that is also still blocked from Wikipedia.🤷‍♂️) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was very clear in my warning before. You are continuing to do this in the last couple of days (see here). The next time you do it, the block will be indefinite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: My apologies, I was not aware that that one counted as WP:HA (since that was an edit summary, and others have mentioned me in edit summaries before, so I didn't think it'd be harassment).
Please tell me- in the future, what on Earth should I do if I can't shake the feeling of "shouting into the wind"??
(See, I went to sleepaway summer camp for the first time in 2013, and I didn't always get a direct/immediate reply whenever I sent email [through the camp's email system, not my personal email] to my mother, and that concerned me because without a reply, I had no way of knowing whether she'd even had a chance to read my emails. Just giving you an idea of what I mean by "shouting into the wind".) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: FYI: Special:Contributions/72.82.44.131 → wiktionary:Special:Contributions/72.82.44.131/16. Fish bowl (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I didn't write those messages to you, Fish bowl. Maybe back in March or April, but certainly not in July! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request on Wiktionary

Hi. Let me make it clear that I do not guarantee that on coming back precisely after a year would grant you an unblock -- you'd need to be able to convince the editors and admins of your language. I'm sorry to say this, but evading blocks using different accounts, IPs, etc. is only worsening your chances of being unblocked. Read also: WP:SO (which is not binding). —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava: Yeah, I see. Wonder why none of them showed me that back in October 2021? That would've helped a lot, because it likely would've prevented me from evading the block anytime after October 31 or so. (Either that, or preemptively blocking all my IP ranges for six months or so. I do know that Chuck Entz did preemptively block my IP ranges, but that was only for one month.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could have stopped evading blocks from whenever you had known it was considered wrong and disruptive. Your ranges kept getting blocked, it was obviously not a good sign. In any case, you should consider stopping to message users for your Wiktionary block per the above discussion I see here. —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Anyway, why is the Wiktionary namespace on, say, editing nowhere near as...well-built as Wikipedia's is? (For instance, there's WP:SOCK and WP:SO but no similar pages on Wiktionary. Also, WP:CHK and WP:RfCU are two different pages, but the same isn't true for WT:Checkuser and WT:RFCU.)

(And no, this isn't about my block, those are just the first examples I can think of right now.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that no pressing need for such pages has been felt yet: Wiktionary community is much smaller in comparison to Wikipedia, and hence we do not have as much bureaucracy. For example, the cases of persistent and major socking (exluding petty socking such as an IP vandal creating an account with a similar pattern of vandalism or vice-versa, etc.) we enounter are quite rare in my experience. (We have wikt:WT:CheckUsers, by the way.) —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Stubs are generally less than 1500B prose size. Anything above that is Start, I have removed the stub tags from Zambezi National Park.Quetzal1964 (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Naremore

Your entire contribution to the James Naremore article got deleted yesterday, the editor listing "unsourced" as the reason. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of that "entire contribution" was from way back when PurgatoryMan created the article in September 2006. The rest was added later in 2012 by Naremore (apparently James Naremore himself). My only two contributions were to the "Bibliography" and "External links" sections, which did NOT contain the unsourced material in question, as shown here. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your name first when I went looking - I kind of freaked out when the guy at the help desk turned around and did that. I was going to put all the books in the body of the article into the bibliography, which only had one book as of yesterday, and I just wanted to know if I should then delete the books in the body of the article, or leave the duplication. I just thought you might want to know. Do you know the Professor? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know him. Maybe you should ask Primefac about your plan to expand the article's bibliography section. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the other day, if the plan is to just list every book he's written, then it's best to do it list-style in its own section. Using {{cite book}} is a good way to make sure all of the useful information is included (though don't put them in <ref>...</ref> tags). Primefac (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bibliography section, someone deleted almost the entire article. See above! -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest someone can be to an indef block without being indef blocked. yet.

So you're admitting to pestering User:Fish bowl on en.wikt using this IP in May, but are claiming someone else was using this same IP to pester Fish bowl on en.wiki in July? I suppose the best that can be said is that this is a sign that you are not 100% beyond redemption, because at least you lie really poorly; at least that doesn't come easily? The only thing that is going to save you from a permanent sitewide ban on en.wiki (with no email and no talk page access, just like en.wikt) is (a) complete honesty from here on out, and (b) leave. people. you. are. in. dispute. with. elsewhere. ALONE. So, two questions:

That was you, wasn't it?
Are you ever going to communicate with someone on en.wiki who you are in dispute with elsewhere?

Right now, you're wasting everyone's time and this is your last chance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. 😳😬😰 Uhh, if I say "yes" or "no" to the first question, do I get to live?? Is this a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation? (By "damned", I mean "indef-banned from WP". See, one of the things about my WT block was―is―my ADHD: poor self-regulation and being terrible at interpersonal cognitive problem-solving [per the ARC Self-Determination Scale Assessment, which I took recently]. Which is why they said I didn't appear to have any self-restraint over at WT:CU. So maybe we could work a compromise or something?? Jeezus, I've never felt so terrible in my life!😩😣😱🤦‍♂️) 2. Communicate about what, exactly? If it's anything about that block, I will TRY my damnedest to keep away from THAT topic. But can I please ask them, for once, about what constitutes cleverness (as opposed to "adding inane typing quirks")? Because, for one, I'd love to know who the most notorious of WP sockmasters were. No, I do not plan to do what they did―just look at Kevin Mitnick & User:Til Eulenspiegel, for instance!
See, I know about the latter because I was once unfortunate enough to be caught up in Bishonen's WP rangeblocks against that guy in my pre-account days. And we all know that TE―a homophobic Biblical literalist―is someone I would never want to have as, you know, my WP-indef-block-jail cellmate. Nor do I want to end up in the ash heap of WP-indef-block notoriety. So, please, do anything you want with me, but don't block me. You can temporarily globally block my IP ranges if you want, but oh no, don't you block my account, please. Seriously, I'm sure we can work out a compromise like the WT one I tried to ask Surjection about back in March. (It was about creating a "Draft" namespace for WT, so that maybe RcAlex36 and I could work as a team instead of him cleaning up after my disruptive edits.) See, maybe if I knew all of you editors in person, you'd probably be less likely to block me??? God, I don't know.

And a third thing about my, uh, personality: You want to know why I kept making inaccurate Chinese entries over at WT, even when RcAlex36 & Justinrleung warned me about them? It's because they never said anything like "quit wasting our time with these substandard creations that we have to clean up" (emphasis mine). Remember how that ARC assessment found me to have poor Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving skills? See, the, uh, proctor told me that my answers to those questions failed to take other people into account. I told her that if those scenarios had been told in third-person rather than second-person, and perhaps also emphasized the idea of multiple steps for those answers, then maybe I'd have had an inkling of how to answer those questions in a more, uh, adequate way. And yes, I realize I'm digressing a lot here and jumping off topic, but I want you to know that I need things to be, you know, spelled out to me like I'm a 5-year-old, sorta like what Svartava's been kind enough to do with me.
In other words, be more specific. Explain in detail how bad it is to you that I keep doing things in ways you don't want, and then give me ways to do those things in ways you do want. Like Chuck Entz did when he told me not to link to Numbered Sections of pages, since they tend to get renumbered, and to use the sense & id templates instead. See, that gives me a good enough reason to not do something and an alternative which I'm happy with. (And I harbor no ill will toward Justinrleung, Surjection, and Fish bowl. So, may I kindly request that they treat me with the same kindness that they'd use for a friend.) Cheerio! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want clear instructions that you don't have to interpret: Do not interact in any way with anyone you have ever interacted with on en.wiktionary. Do not talk to them, do not talk about them, do not talk about things they did, do not talk about things you wish they would do. If you do so, I will, indeed, indef block your account. I'm afraid there is no workaround to do what you want, which is to discuss here your block there. I am confident they do not want to interact with you here either. If one of them does interact with you, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. My 'pologies.
But, am I ever allowed to ask you (who I never interacted with on WT) about "what constitutes cleverness (as opposed to 'adding inane typing quirks')"?
Surely that topic doesn't automatically have to be about my WT block, since it could be about any kind of Wikimedia block, or even about blog-comment sockpuppetry (like what John Huppenthal did). And, as I said before, I do not want to emulate those sockmasters on any Wikimedia sites. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term inability to stop litigating en.wiktionary disputes here, after multiple, multiple warnings to stop. as promised, talk page access also removed.. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The message you just left on my talk page was about your block on en.wikt. If you do not understand that, if after all the warnings I've given you and my bending over backwards to not block you have not worked, I have to conclude that you are incapable of avoiding disruption. I'm somewhat amazed that you thought that was OK, but this just has to end and you've shown you're not going to be able to end it yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #61189

is closed. Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping @Floquenbeam:. (I don't know if you are aware, but you have UTRS access as of today.) Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #61518

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #69310

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #79106 Block Vader of the Sith

is closed. Cross posting from sockpuppet. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting talk page access block

I have lifted the talk page access block on this account so that the user can proceed with a standard unblock request. There is no indication of sockpuppetry since the CU block over a year ago. Checkusers can review Ticket#2024072710005708 in the Checkuser VRT queue. Risker (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First unblock request November 2024

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).

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

Request reason:

To @Floquenbeam, TonyBallioni, and Deepfriedokra: I promise I won't engage in cross-wiki harassment or hounding anymore on en.WP, nor any sockpuppetry.

But!! TBH, I still don't know if there is anything (not cross-wiki) I can post to the talkpages of Surjection and Fish bowl that they won't view as "pestering" & subsequently revert. (Unlike Eirikr, Svartava and Fytcha, who never complained AFAIK.)

And lastly, Floquenbeam―am I ever allowed to ask you if another user's conduct towards me (on some other WMF project) would constitute personal attacks if posted on en.WP?? (That was all I intended to ask you about back in July 2022. Sorry for not making it clear back then―I'd thought I could sorta confide in you.)

Decline reason:

If I could, I'd confront them & say sternly, "I expect you to answer my question, and don't you dare ignore or ghost me". But of course that tactic only works with meeting somebody in-person, not over the Internet. Guess I really don't know how to pry info outta most people online. This in particular has firmly convinced me that this was a good block and continues to be necessary. I agree that these interaction bans would be necessary for an unblock to be possible, but I don't think that you understand the reason for them or are likely to abide by them. -- asilvering (talk) 06:20, 15 November 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.

Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin will come by to review this unblock request, so I'm just giving my two cents as the blocking admin, and since I was pinged. This is not a final decision of some kind. But personally, the only way I would ever conceivably support an unblock here is:

No, you are never allowed to comment to, or about, any editor you know from another project. Whether they have complained or not. A complete one-way interaction ban.
No, you are never allowed to ask me, or any other editor, about our opinions on anything going on at another project.
Also, you are never allowed to create an alternate account here, even if it would normally be OK under WP:LEGITSOCK

These hard, inflexible rules might forbid a few actions that might ordinarily be harmless. BUT, because of the long history of disruption after multiple, multiple warnings, these very clear and simple to understand rules is the only way I think there is any chance you can stick to it, and the only way that I, personally, would support it, and if you violated them in even what you consider to be a harmless way, I'd reblock you.

On a personal note, I tried and tried to prevent having to block you, and spent a lot of time on your case, and I am done. I am not going to be your buddy if you're unblocked, I am not going to be who you ask if an edge case is OK to post or not (hint: it is not OK), I am not someone you try to contact on other projects. This one ping makes sense, since I am the blocking admin, but once this unblock request is approved or denied, I do not want to be contacted any more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have satisfied the conditions of WP:ADMINACCT, have unwatchlisted this page, and have now turned off pings from ST. If any uninvolved admin needs more info from me, or feels I haven't fulfilled ADMINACCT, feel free to ping me to this page. Otherwise, I'm out. Someone besides me will have to remove talk page access again, as I suspect is inevitable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think TPA removal should be done. Please see my last message (now removed) to Asilvering, which I appended to his or her "decline" response. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, alright... Anyway, the only reason I even contacted you PRIOR to my block was because you were the one who responded to Surjection's complaint at WP:ANI with that first warning. (I do wish you'd mentioned WP:IBAN in the first place, though, because Surjection was kind enough to mention WP:HA, after all.)
And I am perplexed about how you "spent a lot of time" trying to unblock me. Which (in your opinion) took up most of your time― A) considering whether to block me or not (and how soon), B) composing the warnings you gave me, or C) reviewing my misconduct (including reading other users' complaints) and checking to see which policies I'd violated? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shāntián Tàiláng, you were blocked on el-wiki earlier this year for driving administrators crazy with your questions. If you want to be unblocked on en-wiki, pestering Floq with a bunch of questions isn't a great start. Let's try to get this back on track: I see that you've been making edits on Commons for the past while and haven't gotten back in trouble there yet. That's good. What kind of edits would you make here, if you were unblocked? -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @Asilvering: I didn't drive el.WT admins crazy with questions ― just a few edit-requests (since I'd noticed some issues w/ some Greek entries on en.WT that needed to be fixed).
As to "what kind of edits" I'd make to en.WP: Look at some of my edits in the Main namespace shortly before my block. I'm very good at noticing if a page needs a category or stub template added (or for astronomical objects, Template:odlist); or, if there's a section requiring expansion that has gone overlooked (similarly to, for en.WT, a missing Etymology section & Template:rfe). I am also good at wikignoming citations so they'll use the correct templates.
My apologies if I ever drove any admins crazy. I simply wanted answers [personally, I prefer how Chuck Entz tends to respond to questions on en.WT], and to me it's never helpful to revert my message (without a clear and concise explanation as to why they can't answer, e.g. "I really don't know"). (If I could, I'd confront them & say sternly, "I expect you to answer my question, and don't you dare ignore or ghost me". But of course that tactic only works with meeting somebody in-person, not over the Internet. Guess I really don't know how to pry info outta most people online.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why'd you bring up WP:LEGITSOCK? I didn't ask (in my unblock request) about whether I could create alternative accounts and/or WP:LEGITSOCK. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not Floq, but I can tell you that no administrator who even glances at your edit/block history on any other project is going to unblock you without a "no alternate accounts" condition. -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second unblock request November 2024

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

"If I could, I'd confront them & say sternly, "I expect you to answer my question, and don't you dare ignore or ghost me". But of course that tactic only works with meeting somebody in-person, not over the Internet. Guess I really don't know how to pry info outta most people online." This in particular has firmly convinced me that this was a good block and continues to be necessary. I agree that these interaction bans would be necessary for an unblock to be possible, but I don't think that you understand the reason for them or are likely to abide by them. Actually, @Asilvering, TonyBallioni, and Deepfriedokra: I doubt I'd be brave or foolhardy enough to do that stern confrontation thing in real life. Look, I can abide by interaction bans as long as you specify which users (like how some user-blocks only block 'em from editing certain pages or namespaces), and (if possible) provide a list of alternative users who will be glad to interact with me and/or answer any questions I have.
(Just so you know, I don't beg for attention, I only beg for answers when I do beg. Why on Earth are some admins pestered by my questions? Have they ever interacted with, say, 5-year-olds?!)
And I can't understand the reason for some interaction bans (not w/ Floq or the en.WT-related ones) without the specified user telling me in words.
A related concept: if a user reverts a message I leave on their talkpage, I won't immediately know if that's a sign they don't want me editing their talkpage unless they leave an edit summary saying so (although thankfully I've already learned my lesson in the cases of Surjection, Fish bowl and Floquenbeam). Maybe I'm just too dense or obtuse or something...
Anyway, what I'd mostly do if unblocked from here is wikignoming, category addition, stub template addition, and adding {{odlist}} to astronomical objects' infoboxes when needed. So why drive away an editor who never meant to cause any harm to admins, and truly does not want to engage in cross-wiki harassment or pestering anymore? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">'''"If I could, I'd confront them & say sternly, "I ''expect'' you to answer my question, and don't you ''dare'' ignore or ghost me". ''But'' of course that tactic only works with meeting somebody in-person, not over the Internet. Guess I really don't know how to pry info outta most people online."''' This in particular has firmly convinced me that this was a good block and continues to be necessary. I agree that these interaction bans would be necessary for an unblock to be possible, but I don't think that you understand the reason for them or are likely to abide by them.</q> Actually, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]], [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]],  and [[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]]:</span> I doubt I'd be brave or foolhardy enough to do that stern confrontation thing in real life. '''Look''', I can abide by [[WP:IBAN|interaction bans]] as long as you specify ''which'' users (like how some user-blocks only block 'em from editing certain pages or namespaces), and (if possible) provide a list of alternative users who will be glad to interact with me and/or answer any questions I have.<br>(Just so you know, I don't beg for ''attention'', I only beg for ''answers'' when I do beg. Why on Earth are some admins pestered by my questions? Have they ever interacted with, say, 5-year-olds?!)<br>And I can't understand the reason for some interaction bans (''not'' w/ Floq or the en.WT-related ones) without the specified user telling me in words.<br>A related concept: if a user reverts a message I leave on their talkpage, I won't immediately know if that's a sign they don't want me editing their talkpage ''unless'' they leave an edit summary saying so (although thankfully I've already learned my lesson in the cases of <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Surjection Surjection], [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fish_bowl Fish bowl] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Floquenbeam Floquenbeam]</span>). Maybe I'm just too dense or obtuse or something...<br>'''Anyway''', what I'd mostly do if unblocked from here is [[WP:GNOME|wikignoming]], category addition, stub template addition, and adding <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:odlist|odlist]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> to astronomical objects' infoboxes when needed. So why drive away an editor who never meant to cause any harm to admins, and truly does ''not'' want to engage in cross-wiki harassment or pestering anymore? [[User:Shāntián Tàiláng|Shāntián Tàiláng]] ([[User talk:Shāntián Tàiláng#top|talk]]) 17:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">'''"If I could, I'd confront them & say sternly, "I ''expect'' you to answer my question, and don't you ''dare'' ignore or ghost me". ''But'' of course that tactic only works with meeting somebody in-person, not over the Internet. Guess I really don't know how to pry info outta most people online."''' This in particular has firmly convinced me that this was a good block and continues to be necessary. I agree that these interaction bans would be necessary for an unblock to be possible, but I don't think that you understand the reason for them or are likely to abide by them.</q> Actually, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]], [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]],  and [[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]]:</span> I doubt I'd be brave or foolhardy enough to do that stern confrontation thing in real life. '''Look''', I can abide by [[WP:IBAN|interaction bans]] as long as you specify ''which'' users (like how some user-blocks only block 'em from editing certain pages or namespaces), and (if possible) provide a list of alternative users who will be glad to interact with me and/or answer any questions I have.<br>(Just so you know, I don't beg for ''attention'', I only beg for ''answers'' when I do beg. Why on Earth are some admins pestered by my questions? Have they ever interacted with, say, 5-year-olds?!)<br>And I can't understand the reason for some interaction bans (''not'' w/ Floq or the en.WT-related ones) without the specified user telling me in words.<br>A related concept: if a user reverts a message I leave on their talkpage, I won't immediately know if that's a sign they don't want me editing their talkpage ''unless'' they leave an edit summary saying so (although thankfully I've already learned my lesson in the cases of <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Surjection Surjection], [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fish_bowl Fish bowl] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Floquenbeam Floquenbeam]</span>). Maybe I'm just too dense or obtuse or something...<br>'''Anyway''', what I'd mostly do if unblocked from here is [[WP:GNOME|wikignoming]], category addition, stub template addition, and adding <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:odlist|odlist]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> to astronomical objects' infoboxes when needed. So why drive away an editor who never meant to cause any harm to admins, and truly does ''not'' want to engage in cross-wiki harassment or pestering anymore? [[User:Shāntián Tàiláng|Shāntián Tàiláng]] ([[User talk:Shāntián Tàiláng#top|talk]]) 17:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">'''"If I could, I'd confront them & say sternly, "I ''expect'' you to answer my question, and don't you ''dare'' ignore or ghost me". ''But'' of course that tactic only works with meeting somebody in-person, not over the Internet. Guess I really don't know how to pry info outta most people online."''' This in particular has firmly convinced me that this was a good block and continues to be necessary. I agree that these interaction bans would be necessary for an unblock to be possible, but I don't think that you understand the reason for them or are likely to abide by them.</q> Actually, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]], [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]],  and [[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]]:</span> I doubt I'd be brave or foolhardy enough to do that stern confrontation thing in real life. '''Look''', I can abide by [[WP:IBAN|interaction bans]] as long as you specify ''which'' users (like how some user-blocks only block 'em from editing certain pages or namespaces), and (if possible) provide a list of alternative users who will be glad to interact with me and/or answer any questions I have.<br>(Just so you know, I don't beg for ''attention'', I only beg for ''answers'' when I do beg. Why on Earth are some admins pestered by my questions? Have they ever interacted with, say, 5-year-olds?!)<br>And I can't understand the reason for some interaction bans (''not'' w/ Floq or the en.WT-related ones) without the specified user telling me in words.<br>A related concept: if a user reverts a message I leave on their talkpage, I won't immediately know if that's a sign they don't want me editing their talkpage ''unless'' they leave an edit summary saying so (although thankfully I've already learned my lesson in the cases of <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Surjection Surjection], [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fish_bowl Fish bowl] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Floquenbeam Floquenbeam]</span>). Maybe I'm just too dense or obtuse or something...<br>'''Anyway''', what I'd mostly do if unblocked from here is [[WP:GNOME|wikignoming]], category addition, stub template addition, and adding <span class="nowrap">{{</span>[[Template:odlist|odlist]]<span class="nowrap">}}</span> to astronomical objects' infoboxes when needed. So why drive away an editor who never meant to cause any harm to admins, and truly does ''not'' want to engage in cross-wiki harassment or pestering anymore? [[User:Shāntián Tàiláng|Shāntián Tàiláng]] ([[User talk:Shāntián Tàiláng#top|talk]]) 17:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm with Floq here, folks. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're "with Floq" about what? That you don't want to be pinged anymore? Or that you don't want me doing any cross-wiki talk, not even with regular Commons users? Or is it something else? (Man, I really long for cooperation; why-oh-why do I seem to alienate sooo many admins even when I'm polite AND non-confrontational?) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]