User talk:WaterflameIsAwesome

Welcome

Hello, WaterflameIsAwesome, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! WaterflameIsAwesome, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2021 World Series. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Random numbers entered into Game 4 linescore. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'm sorry. I believe that to be a mistake, and I will try and not do that again. Sorry! WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2021 World Series. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2021 World Series. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing to prevent further vandalism, as you did at 2021 World Series. 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 ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? What did I do? I'm very confused, please explain. Whatever happened was a mistake, I can't remember doing anything! I'm serious! >:( WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:03, 3 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't do anything. At least, I don't remember doing anything! >:( Please explain. I will ask again if I don't see a response.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; block has expired. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:46, 4 November 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.

You can't be this slow. Look at your contributions. You are lucky not to be indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"world weries" and "Least Valuable Player" were blatant vandalism. More like that and you will be indef blocked. And don't try the "my brother/sister did it" as an excuse. David notMD (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Among Us, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please take a look at WP:What wikipedia is not. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend that you take note of your block and what other users are saying. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Geometry Dash, 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. bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Geometry Dash. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have no idea what made this edit "disruptive" or "unconstructive". The demonlist is a part of the game, and I did cite a reliable source. Please just leave me be. I get it already. All my edits are disruptive edits and tons of vandalism and DEFINITELY not anything helpful. I understand your point already. Now goodbye. >:( WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of your edits. However, you seem to now be taking note of what people are saying. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "you seem to now be taking note of what people are saying" (Notice the bolded word)? I thought I always had. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was supposed to be not. Have you taken a look at the links that were provided in the welcome message above? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, warnings are basically messages to tell you that the specific actions you're being warned for can get you blocked (Although there are some warnings that are merely just notices and shouldn't get you blocked from my knowledge). I haven't taken a look at your edits to Geometry Dash yet to determine if they were truly disruptive. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at your edits and they appear to be made in good faith, however info like that isn't necessarily needed on an article. I agree with bonadea's description of it as WP:FANCRUFT, which as a nutshell it says, "Avoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans. In-universe topics must demonstrate out of universe notability." So the demonlist is really info that's important to a small population of fans. Under detail on FANCRUFT it says, "...because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan". Not trying to lecture you here, however I"m simply trying to give you a better understanding as to why your edit to Geometry Dash was reverted. Also please note that if you make an edit and it gets reverted, don't simply just revert that edit, but instead start a discussion. This process is outlined in WP:BRD and the process is (in my opinion) the best way to avoid a content dispute and/or edit war. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also think it is clear that these edits are in good faith. WaterflameIsAwesome, when you make edits that are meant to improve an article, they are not vandalism, but they might still be disruptive. You added some information to Geometry Dash, about a list of levels, sourced only to the list itself. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository for information, and just because that list exists, it does not follow that it is encyclopedic information. There were also some details that had no source at all, and some (such as the list of the top 21 levels) that are unlikely to stay the same. I hope this makes sense. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Also just so you know, the one link I DID put was the source to the list, so it would've been unreasonable to put it again. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please start paying attention to what other editors say in the posts you respond to. --bonadea contributions talk 22:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok ok, sorryyyyyy. Yikes. Ok, let me state this more clearly:

I already put the link to the list in one place, so putting the link AGAIN at the table/list would be unnecessary, since it's not really useful to put a link twice. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've thought this over, and I have a solution (I think). Maybe the list could have a page of its own? (Probably after I finish my Waterflame page since I'm not nearly the best at multitasking.) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Bonadea said, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Demonlist doesn't meet the general notability guideline – it has not received coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. We also don't include it in the Geometry Dash article because it's cruft – video game articles should provide a concise summary of the game, without excessive detail. A list of the hardest levels in the game won't contribute to a reader's understanding of the game.

Given your interest in wiki editing and Geometry Dash, I would recommend checking out the Geometry Dash Fan Wiki – you might prefer to edit the content there. — Hydrogenation (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrogenation I actually already do use the Fan Wiki. But ok. Thanks for the feedback. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also use the main wiki. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you need to keep in mind that Fandom Wikis and Wikipedia operate under very different rules (on Fandom Wikis basically anything can be added without sources as long as it's associated with the WIki's topic). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaterflameIsAwesome! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, About redirects, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Teahouse Responses

Hello and thank you for choosing to assist at the Teahouse, but please do not give responses such as this? Tenryuu already answered the question in a very precise manner and the response you gave the editor was unnecessary long and had minor inaccuracies. I’d suggest you can benefit from asking questions there rather than responding. Thank you for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I'm sorry. When I was editing, their answer wasn't there, so it might've been an edit conflict that I didn't see or something. Anyways, sorry! WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

Of the millions of people who have registered accounts, and the tens and tens of thousands that edit regularly, the English Wikipedia has 1,074 administrators. There are many ways to contribute to the Wikipedia encyclopedia that do not require being an Administrator. I was saddened to read how frustrated you were by the piling on of answers to your query, but it happened because you did not first try to find out what being an Administrator meant. Yes, it would be cool to have the power to block (or unblock) other editors, or view deleted articles, but the reality is that people who apply and are approved tend to have years and thousands of edits. Plus, it means doing the work. David notMD (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: wow I mean it's still a lot more admins than I thought. I mean if you compare 1,074 to like 10,000,000+ users or something, it's not a whole lot, (However a lot of those accounts are IP addresses, sockpuppet accounts, or accounts that are just dead, shrinking the actual amount to maybe even under a million active users) but over 1,000 admins is just crazy. And yet again of course, a small few might be dead accounts, making it somewhere around 980-1,000 maybe. But yes, I'm sorry I didn't read that already. I'm checking it now. Thanks for responding. (Although maybe you could've responded on my question?)

",,, once I've edited those pages up to where I've put all my knowledge in them"

The quote above tells us everything wrong with your approach to editing Wikipedia, and answers your inquiry about why your edits get reverted.

Wikipedia does not want people to share the "knowledge" they have. Wikipedia wants competent editors to research a topic using reliable, published sources and restate that material in their own words to make our articles better. Your personal knowledge, unsourced, is what Wikipedia calls original research. We try hard to keep original research out of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, as a crowd-sourced project with few barriers to participation, doesn't want the impossible task of vetting each and every editor before they edit. We just want contributions from thousands of people which can be verified by other editors.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has had experts in their field of knowledge - MDs, PhD, college professors - reverted and kicked to the curb because they wanted to contribute what they knew to be true. Wikipedia requires verification via references from everyone. Whenever I attempt to improve an article, I start by looking for references, even if I think I know the topic. David notMD (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaterflameIsAwesome! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I @ people, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaterflameIsAwesome! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Admins, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution

Regarding User talk:EverestMachine 4001 § November 8, 2021: If you have an issue with another editor, the best thing to do is be direct. In a case like this, just tell someone, "Please stop edit-warring, and please don't insult other editors." There are also templated messages for that, but when someone has been around for a while—EverestMachine has >1k edits—it's better to write something out custom, so good job for doing that. :) It's also not helpful to say things like that you would block them if you were an admin, and definitely not helpful to get incivil yourself, like where you said childish ornery person and insulted their intelligence.

More broadly, though, when you're a new user, there's much better ways to start out than trying to intervene in other people's drama. Once someone has already complained about something at the Teahouse, you can guarantee that admins will take a look at it. There's no need for you to intervene. You still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and that's fine! We all did once, and you remind me a lot of myself when I first started editing. But it's important to not bite off more than you can chew. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also say that calling someone a "childish ornery person" can be seen as a personal attack which can get you blocked. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Waterflame green.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Waterflame green.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse host badge

You have this badge on your User page, but you do not appear to qualify yet (at least 30 days, at least 500 edits). Also, some of the advice you proffered at Teahouse was less than useful. I recommend you remove the badge. If you intend to participate as a Teahouse Host, I suggest you continue to gain experience editing articles, and keep an eye on queries and replies at Teahouse, so you will develop expertise there. David notMD (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Oh ok. Got it. Thanks for the advice. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaterflameIsAwesome! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help with "Lie (NF Song)" page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Among Us

Hello Waterflame! I saw you moved Among Us to Among Us (Innersloth video game), which Masem correctly moved back. We usually don't change page names to be like that if there's no other page that has that name (and if there is we don't change the name unless someone would be expecting to find another page searching for this. The only exception I"ve found is pages about numbers where usually the primary topic isn't the number itself which confuses me but I'm not gonna change it).. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, ok. Also, I prefer to be called Flame or Water, or else @WaterflameIsAwesome if it's a ping, rather than the musician's name themself. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that. Also the <refname> is used for repeated refs so the entire ref isn't used multiple times when it's the same ref with different info it's referencing. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool. That's kind of confusing but okay. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I myself don't understand how it works so if I add a ref and use it again, I just use it again and leave it for someone else to make a <refname> thing out of it since I have no clue how to do it correctly. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Host

Your attempt to add yourself as a Teahouse Host was reverted as it was not done correctly. Please don’t retry as you do not have enough experience yet (only 33 mainspace edits, not the c.500 we might expect from a Host.) Don’t let that stop you lurking or helping out there, though, providing you stick to answers you’re sure about. Being at the Teahouse is a great way to learn. PS: I discovered Waterflame today (thanks to you) and enjoyed having them on in the background for a while. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omg cool! Yeah he's been at it since 2002, and I just love his music so much, lol. And also ok sorry I dunno how to check my number of edits so... :/. Also, I received a notification saying I made my 100th edit, but why only 33 "mainspace edits"? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, but your reply about edit counts does go to demonstrate why you're not ready to put your name up as a Teahouse Host at this time. (Every single one of us was in that position when we started editing Wikipedia, of course). If you go to the bottom of your 'userpage contributions' you'll see an 'edit count' link. Clicking that takes you to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/WaterflameIsAwesome There, you'll see a breakdown of all 191 of your edits, of which only 33 are to actual Wikipedia articles (i.e. pages in Mainspace) and 50 are at the Teahouse. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh ok. Got it. (Why do Teahouse questions/responses even count as general edits???) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse response

Hey! I noticed that you answered a user's question on Teahouse, however that user was blocked as a sock. I'm not sure if they said that they were sock blocked around the same time as you answered the question, however I suggest taking a look at WP:DENY just in case. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which user was it? (I answered two users but I'm guessing the "WHY DIDNT WIKIPEDIA ACCEPT MY ARTICLE AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH" user, also I feel that was too dramatic, XD) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one that you told to be more mature. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yep, that's the one. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, like I said take a look at WP:DENY just in case. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waterflame (November 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:MUSICBIO. All the current sources are primary - -requires independent reliable sources

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Waterflame and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Waterflame, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaterflameIsAwesome! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Can I start my own newsletter?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaterflameIsAwesome! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Tips on creating a user page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaterflameIsAwesome! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, 7M Pages, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statement on Black Cat

Hi,

It's great to be bold in editing Wikipedia, but the content you add has to be verifiable and based on reliable sources. You can't just say that Kitty is the 11th oldest cat ever like you did here, you have to provide a reliable source for it. This is not that difficult. There is a simple guide to adding sources and citations here, and a guide to finding new sources here. If you can't find a source, then it should not be added to Wikipedia. Remember, when writing on Wikipedia, our goal is verifiability, not truth. I wish you all the best in your future editing! — Knuthove (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Citing an article with a plausible title which doesn't actually support your claim is bordering on vandalism. I hope you just didn't read it, which would simply be negligent. Knuthove (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I never respected at Wikipedia? :| I hate my life... (>_<)|-> > > WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your situation. I don't know the details of Wikipedia's policy on blocking, but I was a bit surprised that you got blocked indefinitely, right away. However, this is very much not the right way to go about restoring your status as an editor. You can't demand respect. It is earned. Think about how much more you would respect someone who complained to you that you don't respect them enough. You can't simply demand to be unblocked. You need to show you understand the reasons that led to your block, and credibly show that you have learned to do better in the future.

In my experience, you almost always have more success in a conflict by going out of your way to seem accommodating and reasonable, even when you feel you have been treated completely unreasonably. Remember, your goal here is to convince administrators that you are a reasonable person who will follow the rules, and that the unreasonable, rulebreaking thing was blocking you. Do you think the best way to achieve that is to immediately declare that you are being treated unfairly and demand restitution? I wish you the best, on Wikipedia or off. — Knuthove (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is, I DON'T understand why I was blocked. I didn't really expect you to not be surprised, everyone is! And I can't seem to get in contact with the person who blocked me! (@Bbb23) And if I HAVE to be blocked, blocking me indefinitely is just wrong! I have thought of 3 possible problems:

There's something suspicious about the admin who blocked me. (Sort of likely, although it is suspicious that they haven't responded..)
I'm a complete idiot and didn't notice a thing about what got me blocked. (NOT likely at all, at least to me.)
I came to Wikipedia to mess everything up and I'm just some childish baby who deserved this. (-1,000,000,000% likely. That is absolutely not OK and I will not tolerate that towards me.) OK so I think there's more reasons but I don't have time for that. All I know is that I AM a reasonable person (calling me unreasonable is close to an insult (personal attack which can get you blocked) by the way), I HAVE (mostly) been following the rules, and I don't see any unreasonable, rulebreaking thing that would block me. The problem? The admins are never convinced. Depressing, I know. Anyways, I haven't got more time to write, so I'm gonna have to leave it at that. I hope you find this helpful.

WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check Liz’s message. “Not here to build an encyclopedia” means in this context that you’re using Wikipedia for other purposes (plus the disruption). You can make another unblock request, by the way – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green (Waterflame Album)

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 Green (Waterflame Album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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. Knuthove (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not here to build an encyclopedia? I haven't seen this used in this way before - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unfair. @AssumeGoodWraith is correct. This is not a good reason to be blocked. I demand you unblock me immediately. This is unfair and radical. @Bbb23 I don't understand. Please undo this. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 17:47, 26 November 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).

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

Request reason:

"Not here to build an encyclopedia". Seriously? I know Wikipedia very well, and I should not be blocked indefinitely. This is not fair and I have no idea why this is happening. But so what? Everything that happens to me is unfair. I always get harassed in the worst way. I see no difference here. Oh well, this is the end I guess...

Decline reason:

Based on looking at your edits, I think your edits are a net-negative to the project. You are going to need to demonstrate a greater aptitude than you have up to now. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 26 November 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.

Hello? Are you there? Please review this now. I am not an idiot. I am here to build an encyclopedia, NOT to get blocked by admins. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WaterflameIsAwesome,

If you were unblocked, what articles or drafts would you like to be working on? How would you spend your time here? I think reviewing admins on your next unblock request want to see how you could become a productive editor. The Teahouse is a great place to go to get answers to questions about editing and policy but admins want to see how you might spend time improving articles or fighting vandalism. Some younger editors want to just hang out on Wikipedia and admins want to see what kind of positive contribution you would make if you were unblocked. You've made some mistakes, as most new editors do, and they want to know that they won't be repeated. Also, it's better to request an unblock than to create a new account...should you do that, you'll be digging yourself into a hole you can't get out of.

Good luck with your next unblock request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 27 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I AM a reasonable person (calling me unreasonable is close to an insult (personal attack which can get you blocked, by the way) ), I HAVE (mostly) been following the rules, and I don't see any unreasonable, rulebreaking thing that would block me. I hope you find this helpful.

Decline reason:

Per below, and your pugnacity isn't helping, either. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 3 December 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.

You didn't address the points that Liz laid out right above. I suggest that you revise your request to answer her questions, or the request is likely to be declined. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what Liz said. These types of unblock requests won't help. (And I'm only here because I actually do want to see an unblock) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:41, 3 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I would work on any page I feel like working on. Yes, my so-called "mistakes" won't be "repeated" ever again. Yes, I will "listen" to Wikipedia rules for the next 1,000 millenia. Now that I have "addressed" the points that "Liz" put, although in a very "lame" way, goodbye.

Decline reason:

I'm not declining your appeal because *insert ignorant reason that makes no sense* as you assert below, I'm declining your appeal because it's like your read through the advice provided to you by others, and described in detail in Guide to appealing blocks, and then did the opposite. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 7 December 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.

Oh yeah, I forgot, if you decline this one, then you are literally just declining my requests because *insert ignorant reason that makes no sense*. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wait what? Lol I think I accidentially made Liz's name a link to the Wikipedia user page XD WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Keep in mind that I have autism (and not to mention also ADHD), so please be respectful of me. If only I DIDN'T HAVE AUTISM OR ADHD... >:( WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-_-

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 unblock requests later...

finally realizes initial block message says I wasn't blocked at all* why am I doing this when I WASN'T BLOCKED AT ALL?!!? (-_-) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 for being 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.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses are beyond unhelpful as is this modification of your block message. In order to preclude you from digging an even deeper hole, I've revoked your talk page access. WP:UTRS is available for appeals.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just why? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was sad to see. You had a very good chance of being unblocked if you had just followed the advice several people left here, instead of refusing to admit any fault, acting belligerent and attempting to sabotage the unblock process. I hope (against hope) that you at least now understand that this is a very dumb way to act if you want to win someone over to your side.

And just so it’s clear, AssumeGoodWraith, I assume your statements are asking why WaterflameIsAwesome acted the way he did, not why Ponyo very understandably blocked him? — Knuthove (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knuthove: Exactly that. I was following this the entire time, hoping for an unblock and to see WaterflameIsAwesome do that stuff is just sad. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knuthove: And now we've reached the point where they made a sockpuppet account. All hope is gone. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith: This was bad, but not that unexpected. WaterflameIsAwesome is clearly not a good fit for Wikipedia at this time. But I would most definitely not say all hope is gone. Wikipedia is a long term project. WaterflameIsAwesome seems young. He could come back in a few years when he has learned how to behave in a cooperative project. My biggest hope now is that he manages to see this for the learning opportunity that it is. A very clear example of how his own actions, which he was clearly warned against, produced a bad outcome for himself. People can and do change. — Knuthove (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WaterflameIsAwesome. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 03:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Waterflame

Hello, WaterflameIsAwesome. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Waterflame, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Waterflame

Hello, WaterflameIsAwesome. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Waterflame".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]