User talk:Stephenfryfan

@Floquenbeam: It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor.

Floquenbeam wrote,"

What a charming person. I think there's a 95% likelihood that talk page access will be removed with their very first post-block edit. Earlier in their career here, they were adding gems like "Arabs are infidels and illiterate" at least 3 months ago. Let's give people like this a much shorter rope. Or better yet, no rope at all. Someone who types that as an edit summary is never going to end up a productive editor. RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

October 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sia (musician) 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: Sia (musician) was changed by Stephenfryfan (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.870391 on 2020-10-05T16:03:28+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are making mistakes. BOT! Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot has no clue that sia has two non biological black boys. Not her own. Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you can't talk to a bot that way. It's not programmed to respond. If you need any help just ask me, or use the resources in the welcome I have left below. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot's changes were correct. It is not necessary to state, in the infobox, that they are non-biological. If you wish to discuss this, do it at the article's Talk page, rather than here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits you made to the infobox at Sia (musician) constitute WP:EDIT WARring and have been reverted. Please do not continue to Edit War, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In addition, if you wish to add new information to an article, you must cite your source(s). See WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sslivers Cluebot's changes were grossly INCORRECT. READ... IT REVERTED WHICH I DUDUCTED. , but all of these struggled to connect with a mainstream audience

Stephenfryfan (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ssilvers Stephenfryfan (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Stephenfryfan! Thank you for your contributions. I am Sam at Megaputer and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|Sam at Megaputer}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Sam at Megaputer (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are so nice. Stephenfryfan (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you have any questions, just ask. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cornell Law School, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was the error? Stephenfryfan (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I completely misread the sequence of edits. It would have been an error to say that Cornell was one of three Ivy League law schools, but you fixed that right away, changing it back to five. In the end, the only error was a grammatical issue (not a sourcing issue), as "the five only" should be "one of five" or (less neutrally) "one of only five". Thanks for being open to feedback. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do thank you for your openness on my feedback. Stephenfryfan (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Test pilot, you may be blocked from editing. Please.don't add fictional people to lists of actual people - it can be.considered vandalism. BilCat (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence under italic typeset is okay. But... dear negro billcat you should not say it was desruptive nor vandalism. It was a matter of judgmental error perhaps. I thought ppl would relate from fictional character much easily to consume this nerdy article. DON'T write at my talk page offending me. I hope you realize it predator! Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Abbyjjjj96. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jerry Hall, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't 6a just add a link to that? Check on Khan's wiki. Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his out of marriage relationships included relationship with Zeenat Aman,[326] Emma Sergeant, Susie Murray-Philipson, Sita White, Sarah Crawley,[1] Stephanie Beacham, Goldie Hawn, Kristiane Backer, Susannah Constantine, Marie Helvin, Caroline Kellett,[327] Liza Campbell,[55] Anastasia Cooke, Hannah Mary Rothschild,[328] Jerry Hall, and Lulu Blacker.[329][330] Stephenfryfan (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider undoing reversion or correcting khan's wiki. Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Martinevans123. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... but i just COULDN'T stop. Thanks though. I should talk more appropriately. Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just having an assumption that he might look like predator R Kelly. But... martinevans can be not a rapist thpugh. I am sorry again. BTW I commented for editing purpise only. Not to hurt. Stephenfryfan (talk)

I have no animosity towards BLACK AND MUSLIMS to put it on record. He is trying to make it black. Thanks. I will be more cautious. Stephenfryfan (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Stephenfryfan

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Lingiae: got it. Stephenfryfan (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for harassing at least one editor.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor.

Floquenbeam did all these alone while he didn't need to do that in a matter of seriousness. He immorally did EVERYTHING to bait, abuse and mock me which was a RED HANDED proof of Hypocrisy. Thanks if you think you feel shameful and sorry. Stephenfryfan (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: i am very committed to not harass anyone wp ever. Just EXPLAIN your reasons to comment those above sentences and apologise eith removing your talk. Thanks. DON'T FORGET TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER. Stephenfryfan (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I CALL UPON @Floquenbeam: not to SKIP this matter by not addressing. I am looking up to his great morality. Thanks. At least address. Stephenfryfan (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I CALL UPON @Floquenbeam: not to SKIP this matter by not addressing. I am looking up to his great morality. Thanks. At least address. Stephenfryfan (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I CALL UPON @Floquenbeam: not to SKIP this matter by not addressing. I am looking up to his great morality. Thanks. At least address. Stephenfryfan (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: you are pre judging and predicting just to endanger me.

WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED READ THOROUGHLY BEFORE "ASSERTING" IDLE OPINIONS AS WE SEE FROM COUCH POTATO COMMENTATORS. THANKS. BE NICE.

@Floquenbeam: It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor.

Floquenbeam wrote,"

What a charming person. I think there's a 95% likelihood that talk page access will be removed with their very first post-block edit. Earlier in their career here, they were adding gems like "Arabs are infidels and illiterate" at least 3 months ago. Let's give people like this a much shorter rope. Or better yet, no rope at all. Someone who types that as an edit summary is never going to end up a productive editor. RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

You are encouraging, pre judging and predicting by bad intention. While others in that section maintained a minimum neutral point of view and not that much animosity, you are trying to be a bully while you yourself were implying that i had been bullying. It is not a suitable way to dictate and making the same bullying that you were trying to imply on me. Stephenfryfan (talk) 04:22, 23 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).

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

Request reason:

It's a typo; AUTO CORRECT! But not funny obviously. I am too much in depression about my insecurities. It was shameful as well. More importantly... it could hurt defacto to make them uninterested to be on wp. I DON'T want to plead for any consideration. I just need to assert due apology. That's all. Goodbye. I wasn't more in hold of mind. I often used that word on other occasions and it is on my personalised auto correct suggestions. Okay... let me admit that it is grossly irresponsible not to look at what i am typing. I would definitely be angrier had someone labelled me as such albeit by mistake or blunder.

I wasn't in hold of my mind. That's for sure to address this reckless misconduct. I know that it will personally cause me a ptsd in my nostalgic rewinding of my deeds. You are right.

It was both a combination of auto correct failires and typographical mistakes. I take the full responsibility for it finally. I just COULDN'T help to confess I was TOTALLY inconsiderate. Here none does jobs for personal benefits but to make it socially endorsed learning of matters with comprehensive details. I was arrogant and fruatrated that why would it be unacceptable to include full name of a vigilant. But taking full responsibility to shame escape from law was not a good example for myself. It made me to do what i was fighting against. That was hell of a bipolarity for to be privileged with edit icon. Remorseful.

This was for me to confess. Stephenfryfan (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if I believe that typos and autocorrect issues are to blame for what you posted, that doesn't address the harassment of the other user. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 23 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.

@331dot:

Obviously, you are correct. But, i apologised right then to martinevan123 and didn't engage in bad behaviour again. It was shamefully DeFacto whom I mocked repetedly albeit not mentioning, but passively. I already stated that reason and apologies on my review request. If you after all think I should not be allowed, at least make a time frame even if for a larger period. I think it was my first block for misconducts. So one last restricted chance could be considered if possible. Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{}reply to|331dot}} Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already weighed in, it's out of my hands now; you are free to make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already confessed (though i did those misconducts truthfully and dangerously). But, i know my faultlines as know you. I know now attacking someone (example, Defacto, at least) summaries are vehemently wrong. But, i could challenge someone if i think it goes against wp policy now on. I am in a position of defence as i am barred to edit. I have nothing to lose as of yet. I am not hiding these disturbing attitudes. But, here i am to take responsibility. I was seeking a clear decision on it so it be dismissed and not hanh around. Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please spot up and say which exact reasons you think does nit meet to positive decision? So i can make one last attempt to explain on a new request revuew? Thanks. !@331dot: Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that wp adm donot overrule another's decline. But i will nonetheless will try for good. I need to know your perspective for decline which i should address on last. Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions? Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced you didn't do unjust. But, i am desparate to end of this INDEFINITE block. Just give me a personalised clue as a good gesture. Thanks. Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My decline message speaks for itself, and I have nothing else to say. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ping me multiple times. Once is enough, despite appearances I am not here 24/7. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another AN/I notice for you - personal attack against an editor.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

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.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 14:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]