Jump to content

User talk:Whoop whoop pull up/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia!

- Welcome-
Cookies to welcome you!
Hello, Whoop whoop pull up! Thank you for your contributions. My name's Brambleclawx and I just wanted to say hi and Welcome to Wikipedia! If you need help, try looking at some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of the world's largest encyclopædia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name, the date and the time. If you are already loving Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field every time you edit. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Brambleclawx 00:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Thanks, Brambleclawx! Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Flight 103

Why did someone redirect "Flight 103" to Pan Am Flight 103? It isn't too hard to type "Pan Am 103" or simply "PA103." Also, it was not redirected "back to the primary topic," as per one editor's comment, but redirected there for the first time (t previously wasn't even an article, let alone a redirect.)

ATP

Trust me, I checked this. I also thought to make ATP redirect to Adenosine triphosphate. There were about 500 pages using ATP directly so I could easily check. And no, to my amazement about 200 of them were to Association of Tennis Professionals and 50ish were to All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival). There just isn't justification for it. --Muhandes (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That still makes the greatest number to Adenosine triphosphate, and that is also likely to be the most familiar to readers, as well as the most often looked for. And that is the only thing ATP stands for, so it should go to Adenosine triphosphate, with a separate ATP (disambiguation) page. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not how it works, see WP:PT. A subject has to be "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be primary, and as you can see, it isn't. (also, obviously what you said "that is the only thing ATP stands for" is incorrect. The whole idea of the dab page is that ATP stands for all the other meanings as well. I'm no tennis fan myself, but for tennis fans ATP stands for Association of Tennis Professionals. I'm not much of a music fan either, but it seems like All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival) is very big for some music fans) --Muhandes (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so that's how it is? Well, sor—ry!

Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No harm done, and I fell for exactly the same thing, if not with this page than with another, before I learned the rule. Best regards, and happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
'Bye! --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised too. I'd think ATP would be best known as Adenosine triphosphate. Wow. Brambleclawx 01:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Nice to see a new user who has a chemical expertise. COT2- would make a welcome contribution to the COT article. If you are thinking of creating an article on the anion, then I recommend that you shift the topic slightly to a real compound, which are more readily described with a "chembox" (not used for charged species). I would expect that there really is not COT2- except inside a mass spectrometer, and the alkali metal derivatives would be significantly covalent, akin to organolithium compounds. If you want some advice, there is a project page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals where some folks with a lot of chemical knowledge can help. So ask.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
If you add defamatory content once again, as you did to Bad Romance, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch<Talk C. 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


How was adding the Annoying Orange link "defamatory"? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ununseptium

Hi there. I noticed you moved the Ununseptium page to Ununseptine. The article itself notes that all newly-discovered elements should end in -ium, even if they're in the halogen or noble gas group. On what basis did you decide to move this, given the IUPAC recommendation that "For linguistic consistency, the names of all new elements should end in “-ium”."? This is really the sort of thing that should be discussed on the talk page first. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
  2. Then click on "templates",
  3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
  4. If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Greco-Persian Wars‎, you may be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I did that because Persian Wars now includes the relevant parts of the content that I removed, thus making much of that hatnote redundant. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Annoying Orange episodes

Plase, note that The Annoying Orange episodes have no notability to be included at Wikipedia. Articles on episodes normally do not include details about what each character has said. The best thing to do is to create a list of episodes, instead of many short, unencyclopedic pages. Victão Lopes I hear you... 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

They are no less notable than episodes of The Simpsons. If you are right, we might as well delete all the articles on the individual Simpsons episodes. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jimbo Wales. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You should know better —Soap— 19:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How was writing that he was the Leader of Wikipedia "unconstructive"? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Emperor Norton Succession Box

Please note that you are in violation of the Three Revision Rule. It is absurd to put a succession box on the Emperor Norton article, as he wasn't really an Emperor, he didn't have a precursor or a successor. Wikipedia is not (normally) a joke, so please desist from adding the successor box to this article. --Paul (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at user talk:Jimbo Wales, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Seriously, you were close to a block earlier and we decided to give you another chance. This is really your last warning. —Soap— 17:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not one of your 395 edits to date has been unambiguously useful and you seem intent on annoying people rather than contributing to an encyclopaedia. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
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).

Whoop whoop pull up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How are none of my edits useful?

Decline reason:

Only you would know why you are making edits that are completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Is it competence? You would have to tell us, as you have been blocked because of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:47, 30 October 2010 (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 did not realize that I was not being helpful. D-: --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Please please pretty please? I promise to never try to vandalize Wikipedia again. Please please PLEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAASE? —sniff— --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore my earlier comments. In your opinion, what Wikipedia policies should I learn more about? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I have read WP:COMPETENCE. Now I see the problems with my edits. May I be unblocked now?}} --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Several examples please of the problems you see and why. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I didn't realize that Norton was actually never emperor. 2. I forgot that it isn't April Fools' Day when I posted that comment on Jimbo Wales' talk page. 3. I did not realize that adding a link to The Annoying Orange from Bad Romance was defamatory content. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk)
Hellooo? Where have you gone, Dougweller? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 17:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I expected you to add a new unblock template. I'll let someone else decide. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
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).

Whoop whoop pull up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I didn't realize that Norton was actually never emperor. 2. I forgot that it isn't April Fools' Day when I posted that comment on Jimbo Wales' talk page. 3. I did not realize that adding a link to The Annoying Orange from Bad Romance was defamatory content.

Decline reason:

I see no evidence that unblocking you will lead to a better encyclopedia. TNXMan 20:11, 26 November 2010 (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.

Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 21:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Look, I asked Dougweller. He asked for "several examples please of the problems you see and why." I gave him some examples. He said he expected me to add a new unblock template. I did exactly that—and then YOU came along and !@$%*&^!@#$)&!*%%&^!@#$<>?{":~?! So just lay off me, will ya? And this time I WILL add a new unblock template, for him (Dougweller) to answer only! --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 14:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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).

Whoop whoop pull up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I didn't realize that Norton was actually never emperor. 2. I forgot that it isn't April Fools' Day when I posted that comment on Jimbo Wales' talk page. 3. I did not realize that adding a link to The Annoying Orange from Bad Romance was defamatory content. And only Dougweller answer this one, please!

Decline reason:

1: Irrelevant. 2: If you claim to forget that April Fool's Day isn't in late October, there is an issue with either honesty or competence. 3: Also irrelevant. The block is for disruptive editing. Few, if any, of your communications during the unblock appeal process have been particularly confidence-inspiring, either. - Vianello (Talk) 21:28, 24 December 2010 (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've fixed your unblock template, but I'm not convinced so I'm leaving it to others, if another Admin wants to unblock you, fine. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Do you think the Emperor Norton dispute should go on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 18:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
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).

Whoop whoop pull up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I forgot that Emperor Norton, despite his name, was never actually an emperor, and that one of the worst ways to solve a dispute is to start a revert war. 2. Because of the numerous "joke" comments at User talk:Lord Voldemort, I thought that was allowed and added a joke comment to User talk:Jimbo Wales. 3. I forgot that human body parts have different names than their animal equivalents, i.e. that what is the "posterior vena cava" in animals is the "inferior vena cava" in humans.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. You still have not given any indication that you understand why you were blocked, or that you will improve in future. If you keep abusing the unblock procedure, you will be blocked from editing this page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:12, 10 May 2011 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Whoop whoop pull up (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know I was blocked for disruptive editing, includng vandalizing User talk:Jimbo Wales and starting a revert war on Emperor Norton. I promise not to do that ever again and I promise to make useful contributions and help build Wikipedia instead. I'm sorry.

Accept reason:

As Doug has indicated he's ok with another admin unblocking you I'm going to go ahead and do it. To be honest, I think you are lying. Your explanations stretch believability well beyond the breaking point and I am quite certain none of it was a mistake or a misunderstanding and you were in fact acting in bad faith. So why am I unblocking you? To give you a chance to prove me wrong. I'll be watching you, and if you commit just one single act of vandalism ever again I will reblock you without further warning and revoke your ability to edit this talk page and your access to the Wikipedia email system. You will have to email the Arbitration Committee directly to request unblock. I'd love it if you proved me wrong and became a active user making positive contributions but I will not hesitate to enforce these conditions. The choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Movie

I moved your movie III to my userspace just in case an admin decided to delete it since you were blocked. If you'd like to tell me about what you'd like to see in the scenes, I'l be looking here. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whoop_whoop_pull_up/Archive_1&oldid=868744113"