User talk:Thoughtprovoke
Thoughtprovoke, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Thoughtprovoke! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC) |
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Tagging
[edit]You need to get consensus first. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Userspace draft
[edit]Hi Thoughtprovoke and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that part of your user talk page appears to look like an article. Please be advised that Wikipedia has specific guidelines regarding user pages, and pages that do not adhere to those guidelines may be deleted or edited accordingly. If you are working on the draft of an article you hope to someday add to the mainspace, I suggest you create a userspace draft and move the content to said draft so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Thank you. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
A belated welcome
[edit]Hi! Here is some info for you. Many of the links on this post may be useful for you in your editing, so take a look and you will get on the right track when creating articles. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Welcome Thoughtprovoke!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.More thoughts to encourage you
[edit]As someone experiencing a mental illness myself, I have a somewhat different take on the exchange between you and other editors that has taken place in the Teahouse, where I am also a host. Please just simply apologize if you have offended anyone, cool off for a while and assume that the other editors are acting in good faith and want to help you edit Wikipedia. Its pretty simple and we want to help you edit well and constructively. Calling someone names escalates unpleasant conversations. Best Regards,
A cup of tea for you!
[edit]
|
Take time to take breaks; breathe deeply; and know that what information you have to contribute to Wikipedia is appreciated. Bfpage |leave a message 13:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) |
Please consider the following:
[edit]I have just reviewed your request at WP:PERM/C, and have replied there, but I thought I'd drop a note here as well explaining a few things:
- You are already an autoconfirmed user
- But if you weren't, resorting to petty name-calling in a request for permisssions is a sure fire way to get your request denied, and for administrators to see you as a potential problem user who may need to be blocked at some point, so I wouldn't do that again.
- Also, you seemed to actually be asking for a very advanced user right that you apparently imagine would give you the upper hand in a content dispute. There is no such user right. Anyone who uses any advanced permissions to advance their position in a content dispute would be abusing that user right and would probably have it taken away.
- The correct way to resolve a content dispute, which I can see has been explained to you before, is to use the article's talk page to discuss the matter. If instead you choose to edit war and insult other users, again, blocking of your account is the most likely result.
I'm telling you all this because we don't actually want to block people, we can always use more good contributors and I'd like to see you be a positive contributor here rather than a negative one who has to be blocked. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about contributing here, and so far you are doing it the wrong way. I hope you can see your way clear to trying the right way. The choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]Please stop vandalizing the schizophrenia article. The next time you do this, I will seek a block against you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Schiozophrenia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thoughtprovoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Beeblebrox needs to talk with me about good and bad, postive and negative, right and wrong is before they should even be able to block me. I have worked in Healthcare, this Beeblebrox does not have any semblance of good reasoning is. They claim that pointing out error on the page is Disruptive editing: WP:NOTTHERAPY . I am technical person, Beeblebrox's spelling and other minor correction have nothing to do with level of reasoning that Schizophrenia requires and Beeblebrox is not sound with their judgement. If the article: Schizophrenia, is administer protected by two people or more people, I suggest that the permissions and permissions at large consider the method of administration not a friendship
Decline reason:
Your request doesn't make a lot of sense, but it appears to be a case of WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
- I would just add that although you have removed the block notice and the assosciated comemnts I left after blocking you, anyone can see older messages on this page where myself and several others, did in fact repeatedly attempt to explain to you what you were doing wrong and how to proceed in the future. That you choose to not only ignore but insult everyone who has tried to counsel you says more about you than it does about us. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thoughtprovoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am in the understanding of how the editing should collaborate with others.
Decline reason:
That doesn't go anywhere near far enough. We'd need to see a proper understanding of why your approach of attacking people who disagree with you is unacceptable, why you cannot use Wikipedia to push your own personal views, and how you would proceed if unblocked. (Judging by your messages here, I also have serious doubts about whether you have sufficient command of English to be working on an English language encyclopedia.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
Thoughtprovoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am asking that you do the right thing and unlock my account now. Thank you.
Decline reason:
If you continue wasting our time, we will lock this talk page. You have to explain WHY your block is no longer appropriate. Yamla (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
Thoughtprovoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18683 was submitted on Jul 09, 2017 20:33:35. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thoughtprovoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23055 was submitted on Oct 26, 2018 22:49:53. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thoughtprovoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The Wikipedia Administrator told me to place the unblock request here in the user talk page. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions. This is directly from the guide to appealing blocks.
Decline reason:
Since you are continuing to waste our time with pointless unblock requests, your ability to edit this page has been revoked. Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
I can't review your unblock request as I have previously declined. However, your unblock request doesn't significantly improve on previous unblock requests. I very, very strongly recommend you take it down and write a proper one, one that follows the guidelines in WP:GAB. Otherwise, you are likely to lose access to your talk page once again. --Yamla (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
“This is directly from the guide to appealing blocks.” Yes it is. Making it useless. What you need to do is explain in your own words why the block is not necessary, and what you would do differently if unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thoughtprovoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23108 was submitted on Nov 04, 2018 23:24:09. This review is now closed.