User talk:Silver1500

This is Silver1500's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

Silver1500, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Silver1500! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Silver1500/JSON

Hello Silver1500,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Silver1500/JSON for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Govvy (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove others' comments

You've repeatedly removed another editor's posts at Talk:Christmas Comes But Once a Year (Mad Men). Don't do this. If you don't agree with what he's saying then say so, but don't remove others' posts. If you do this again you'll be blocked from editing. E Eng 02:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

You warned the IP address 2600:8801:890E:700:C8EC:C3F9:CAE9:9655 for their edit on SK8 the Infinity, however, their edit was because that character was referred to that way once in the show. While I don't think it needs to be mentioned, warning them over it was too harsh. Please observe good faith in the future. Link20XX (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assume good faith, reckless use of vandalism notifications

You issued a warning for my edits on space habitat. But after checking again my edit was completely fine, I think you should be more careful before being so quick to borderline accuse people of vandalism. Prins van Oranje 16:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Hi there! I don't know why you issued a "vandalism" warning for my making small and simple grammatical corrections. Every little bit helps, you know! 76.94.209.63 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, this guy just did a similar thing to me, accusing me of vandalising a page when I fixed grammar. Prins van Oranje 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He also incorrectly accused me of vandalism.[1] He seems to shoot first and ask questions later. I hope he will try to be more careful in future, and make an effort to read edit summaries, check the diffs, and look at the article before making rude and insulting accusations. WP:GOODFAITH -- 109.76.147.33 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of user

It seems you have been harassing a user, User talk:76.94.209.63, accusing him of vandalising wikipedia for minor edits to grammar he made on an article. Care to explain why? Prins van Oranje 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, slow down

Your revert here seems inappropriate. That was unsourced content added in Special:Diff/1008318103 and it appears correctly removed (except the edit summary of the removing diff, but that's not a reason to revert). Similarly, this revert does not appear to be reverting vandalism. Reverts without an edit summary should only be for reverting vandalism where a summary isn't necessary and the reason for the revert is evident from just looking at the edit. That does not apply here. This is more of the same. Please, slow down. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please stop restoring vandalism, or I'll ask that this account be blocked. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:39A7:29FF:2C49:3CF2 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:39A7:29FF:2C49:3CF2 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined block. Silver1500 (tu?) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Rock

I’ve declined your report at WP:AIV regarding the Kid Rock article. The 2601 IP had reverted vandalism by the 199 IP (who I blocked earlier) and you edit warred that vandalism back into the article. And you did the same at Bubba Sparxxx. That’s not good. Perhaps you ought step back from vandal fighting. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. I'm not sure if your disruptive editing is due to gross incompetence or whether you are simply a vandalism-only account. Frankkly, it doesn't really matter as the result is basically the same (i.e. edits which deface pages, including ones involving living persons).

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 04:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Silver1500 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, it's going went a revert for is it, but must blocking trying ask. Revert for Kid Rock now.

Decline reason:

Per below. I think you should really consider whether you've got the skills to edit here — Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2021 (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.

Silver1500, I'm afraid that I am unable to parse the precise meaning behind: Sorry, it's going went a revert for is it, but must blocking trying ask. It simply is too incoherent, sorry. El_C 04:26, 26 February 2021 (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).

Silver1500 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Error math 9127 - 2633 = 7725 but more equal. Correct math 9127 - 2633 = 6494.

Good table

{| class="wikitable" |+ caption ! heading !! heading |- | cell || cell |- | cell || cell |}

Bad table

{| CLASS="WIKITABLE" |+ CAPTION ! HEADING !! HEADING |- | CELL || CELL |- | CELL || CELL |}

Silver1500 (tu?) 00:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Decline reason:

Sock of Blaine2020. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2021 (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.