User talk:Xayahrainie43

Xayahrainie43, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Xayahrainie43! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Organic chemistry. 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I cited my sources that the organoastatine compounds exist. What is your source that they don't? Try googling "organoastatine" for many hits. DMacks (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-4 (number) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect -4 (number). Since you had some involvement with the -4 (number) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 271 (number)

Hi, I'm Domdeparis. Voortle, thanks for creating 271 (number)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. please add sources to back up what you wrote and show this meets WP:WINI

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.--Dom from Paris (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it to the redirect (whether or not you are Voortle), as the added information needs to be sourced, and most is trivia or meaningless. I liked most of your additions to 288, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring challenged material

Please don't restore material that has been challenged without providing a source as you did at 836 (number). You are in conflict with our verifiability policy and are at risk of slipping into edit warring for which you can be sanctioned. You would also be well advised to discuss the issues on the article talk page first as an editor has queried the relevance of some of the material. SpinningSpark 13:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 271 (number). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also WP:BRD. If you want to discuss individual items, place them on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1027 (number) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1027 (number). Since you had some involvement with the 1027 (number) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Redirects for deletion notices from redirects. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 281 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I share the same feelings you do about "rationalized Planck Units" ...

... but that last edit needs a cited reference. It was a historical claim, one that I have never read in any publication nor heard of anywhere. But, evidently, we both think that the most natural units are $c=\hbar =4\pi G=\epsilon _{0}=k_{\text{B}}=1$ . Just be careful making a tangible historical claim without citing a solid reference. Regards, 50.47.109.19 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do better in justifying changes you make to Planck units. 50.47.109.19 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nim

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Nim, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it (Riemann hypothesis)

So far we only have a conference abstract. We don't even have the actual talk. The attempted proof could be flawed. For every famous conjecture solved there are tons of attempted proofs that turn out to be flawed later. It is too early to edit articles. After the talk, if no one quickly spots an error, we can add it as possible proof in Riemann hypothesis. If it survives months of scrutiny from experts and the secondary sources agree we can call the problem solved. --mfb (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

180-gon

Hi. Note that the infobox on 180-gon is the wrong one. (It's the one for a 360-gon) Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Icosihenagon. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.
Same applies to articles Triacontahexagon and Icositrigon. You can start a discussion if you wish, but please don't change it back without discussion. Hzh (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 4294967295-gon

The article 4294967295-gon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

VERY minor. Clearly should not be here at all, but I would consider a merging into the number an acceptable result.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

271 (number)

Please do not edit war. Please see WP:EDITWARRING and WP:3RR. Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (ASCII 93) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating ASCII 93, Xayahrainie43!

Wikipedia editor L293D just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Your redirect has no target.

To reply, leave a comment on L293D's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not redirect here

I reverted your edit which added a hatnote reading For technical reasons, " " does not redirect here. The point of {{hatnote}} is to answer a reader's question Am I on the right page? There is no reason to tell readers that a redirect does not exist. It looks like a similar hatnote was added here:

I think they should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq is obviously correct. Please revert your additions of such notes to these and any other similar articles. --JBL (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I believe that I have reverted all of these additions. --JBL (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nexus prime (number) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nexus prime (number) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus prime (number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2-ary listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2-ary. Since you had some involvement with the 2-ary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3-ary listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 3-ary. Since you had some involvement with the 3-ary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper6 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hyper6. Since you had some involvement with the Hyper6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1-ary listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1-ary. Since you had some involvement with the 1-ary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, do you know what this user's recently created redirects are all about? Xayahrainie43, can you explain '=' and things like that? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "!" means the character "!", thus be redirected to !, and '!' means the ASCII code of "!", i.e. 33, thus '!' should be redirect to 33 (number). --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that makes it necessary to make the redirect. Are you doing "'t'" as well, and all the other signs? I really don't see the point of it. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I have already done the redirects for ASCII 0, ASCII 1, ASCII 2, ..., ASCII 300 to the pages (the ASCII/unicode character of the number), e.g. ASCII 33 to ! and ASCII 65 to A. --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those, individually, make some sense, although, overall, they may not be helpful. The reverse direction (! to 33) should be summarily deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ASCII 0 to ASCII 127 make some sense, but not for values larger than 127 like ASCII 128 or even ASCII 300. (Some 4-digit numbers make sense as well like ASCII 1963, ASCII 1965, ASCII 1967, ASCII 1968, ASCII 1977, ASCII 1986, but they are used for the year numbers of ASCII revisions, and are long established, anyway).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects ASCII 128 to ASCII 300 have now been speedy deleted (because they don't have anything to do with ASCII) with Roger's help.

I think the redirects ASCII 0 to ASCII 127 can stay, provided they point to a useful target, ideally with #hash target (and definitely without a double redirect).

For Unicode characters given as hex number, we could use {{R from code}} redirects following the U+nnnn notation (with nnnn = 4-digit hex number with leading zeros and uppercase letters), e.g. U+0000 or U+00A0. We already have quite some redirects following this convention. As the notation is specific to Unicode, we don't risk causing ambiguity with other character sets or hex numbers. Having such redirects would also improve reverse lookup.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xayahrainie43, I saw that you created a bunch of redirects of the U+nnnn type now. That's fine at least with me, but it is important that you don't create double-redirects, that the link target is really useful and as specific as possible (using #), and that you add so called "rcats" {{R from code}} {{R to related topic}} to the redirects (for an example, see the source code of U+0000), because otherwise someone else will have to edit those redirects to add the rcats, which would be a waste of time as they can be added with the initial edit already. Quality is more important than quantity.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent redirects

There is a problem with your recent redirects: a large part of them redirect to another redirect; this is problematic. See WP:DOUBLEREDIRECT. Many are also not very relevant, such as your recent spree of redirects starting with "\". \' is a good example of such a problematic redirect. I would advise you to slow down and read WP:R (if you haven't yet) and other relevant guidelines. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:L293D, is it time to take this elsewhere, like a noticeboard? I really need to hear from a few experts on this multitude of redirects whose purpose completely escapes me. I thought one limitation on redirects was that they need to be plausible. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm not a fan of drama boards, but I can tell this is going to happen sooner or later given the sheer volume of (sometimes bad) redirects. Like they just created 50+ redirects from "\<insert random number here>" to various titles. I'll give them time to slow down a bit, but I would be mighty surprised if they don't get taken to some board in the next 1-7 days. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think AvicBot and other bots will fix double redirects. --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you should address the problems here. L293D, remember Neelix? Who wants to deal with cleanup in a week if this continues and it turns out that a whole bunch don't meet requirements? Drmies (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a few random people I picked up on the talk page of WP:R: Thryduulf, SmokeyJoe, Bilorv, Redrose64--any thoughts? See also section above this one, plz. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm going to bed now, I'll leave it up to you to start a ANI or AN discussion. I might start one tomorrow if no one does. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This probably won't win me any friends, but: Looking through this user's contributors my take is that while there occasionally is some good stuff, on the whole they are net-negative to the project. S/he needs some hard limits (e.g. 1RR, ban on creating redirects, etc, ) before they cause ever bigger messes that others will need to cleaned up. Yilloslime (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged. I have previously had some opinion on double redirects, but I think I was then educated. On creating redirects that are likely expected to be double redirects corrected by a bot I have little opinion.

A bigger concern is that User:Xayahrainie43 is creating a lot of new redirects of very dubious merit. Is this to inflate personal article creation statistics?

I would call his edit history of redirect creations a violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot-like_editing. Therefore, STOP. If these redirects are a good idea, go through Wikipedia:Bot policy to seek agreement and approval and help.

I am very dubious of this user given that he is a new account with his user page User:Xayahrainie43 WP:CSD#U5-ed by User:RHaworth. This account should be watched for sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do need a discussion here, as they were still creating redirects while this discussion was ongoing (although their last edit was part way through) and while a few of the redirects may have merit, most are dubious at best and many are not even that (the '~' style ones are borderline R3). The U5-deleted userpage (U5 = misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost) seems to have been a mathematical essay/exposition on the benefits of a duodecimal system. I suspect that they are editing in good faith, but combination of the above and their edits at articles like ASCII suggest that they haven't quite understood the purpose of Wikipedia. I'd suggest a requirement to slow down and a ban on creating redirects (but not on requesting a limited number at WP:AFC/R) and a ban on retargetting existing ones without prior discussion. I'm open to other suggestions though. Please ping me if a discussion is started at AN/I or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects of the type \n and \xn

Xayahrainie43, you recently created a list of redirects following the \xn and \n pattern:

\x7F \127
\x7E \126
\x7D \125
\x7C \124
\x7B \123
?
\x60 \96
\x5F \95
\x5E \94
\x5D \93
\x5C \92
\x5B \91
\x5A \90
?
\x43 \67
\x42 \66
\x41 \65
\x40 \64
\x3F \63
\x3E \62
\x3D \61
\x3C \60
\x3B \59
\x3A \58
\x39 \57
\x38 \56
\x37 \55
\x36 \54
\x35 \53
\x34 \52
\x33 \51
\x32 \50
\x31 \49
\x30 \48
\x2F \47
\x2E \46
\x2D \45
\x2C \44
\x2B \43
\x2A \42
\x29 \41
\x28 \40
\x27 \39
\x26 \38
\x25 \37
\x24 \36
\x23 \35
\x22 \34
\x21 \33
\x20 \32
\x1F \31
\x1E \30
\x1D \29
\x1C \28
\x1B \27
\x1A \26
\x19 \25
\x18 \24
\x17 \23
\x16 \22
\x15 \21
\x14 \20
\x13 \19
\x12 \18
\x11 \17
\x10 \16
\xF \x0F \15
\xE \x0E \14
\xD \x0D \13
\xC \x0C \12
\xB \x0B \11
\xA \x0A \10
\x9 \9 (\x09 exists as well, but was created by someone else)
\x8 \x08 \8
\x7 \x07 \7
\x6 \x06 \6
\x5 \x05 \5
\x4 \x04 \4
\x3 \x03 \3
\x2 \x02 \2
\x1 \x01 \1
\x0 \x00 (\0 exists as well, but was created by someone else)

As far as I see they all point to characters in character set articles. While I can imagine the intention (to help the search engine when someone encounters such strings in source code and doesn't know what it is), I'm not sure the names are unambiguous enough to not cause problems elsewhere.

For example, you use the \n notation for decimal values. I am aware that the \n notation is sometimes used for decimal values, but much more commonly it is used for octal numbers, so these names are ambiguous (for values larger than 7) and would have to be converted into disambiguation pages, renamed to include parenthetical disambiguation (like \123 (decimal) and \123 (octal)) or be deleted.

This does not happen for the \xn notation which always uses hex numbers. But I'm not sure \n and \xn are only used to specify characters. Most of the time, they are, but they can also be used just to represent binary values (that is, without the implied meaning of "character"). So, they might need disambiguation as well.

So, please be more careful when choosing redirect names: they should not only be not conflictive with other existing uses in Wikipedia, but also with other uses outside of Wikipedia.

Comments? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unicode characters

Template:Unicode characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice/request

Hi Xayahrainie43,

You have been making a lot of edits recently, some of which are substantive improvements to Wikipedia. So thank you for that. However, you have probably noticed that there is a lot of concern about some of your edits: your talk page (where I am writing now) has been accumulating objections to your work at a pretty rapid pace, and four of the last five discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (the central clearinghouse for editing relating to mathematics) are about your work.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That means that participating here involves a certain obligation to communicate with your fellow-editors, to help build consensus about how to do things. (As an example, your comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/180-gon show that you don't really understand yet what existing community standards are for when individual mathematical objects merit their own articles.) So far, you seem to have mostly ignored the comments on your talk page and at WPM. This is worrisome. It will generate hostility from other editors, and in particular, it runs the risk that you will eventually be blocked as a disruptive user (even though many of your edits are good and may be individually justifiable). I would like to make three suggestions:

Slow down. There is no deadline to finish Wikipedia, and it would be better for you to have a long career as an editor here at a slower pace than to annoy a bunch of people and get blocked.
Communicate. This is a collaborative project, and you should learn by talking to other users (on your talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, or on article talk pages) what community norms are.
Focus on substance. A lot of your edits are things like batch-producing redirects from unlikely search options; a more valuable use of your efforts would be to work to substantively improve existing articles, or start articles where there is a strong reason to believe that it is in keeping with Wikipedia standards.

Thanks, and feel free to leave me a message either here or on my talk page at any point. --JBL (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Smarandache number for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smarandache number is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarandache number until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Least Yoshigahara multidigital number

Hello, Xayahrainie43. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Least Yoshigahara multidigital number, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

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

Hzh (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rhonda number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode 0 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unicode 0. Since you had some involvement with the Unicode 0 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Stop making these unicode redirects until the discussion has concluded. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-like warning

It seems that you are running unapproved scripts on Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia's bot policy, the use of unapproved bots or approved bots out of their approved conditions may result in blocking of both your account and the bot account in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. JBL (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider responding to the discussion at ANI. It has been proposed that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your failure to respond at AN/I, which reflects the persistent problem of your unwillingness to communicate, even to address problems and complaints with your own editing, your account has been blocked indefinitely. If you'd like to to start communicating, and are willing to respond to the messages and complaints you have received, you can request an unblock. Information on requesting unblock can be found at the guide to appealing blocks. Swarm talk 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rhonda number for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhonda number is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda number until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion while logged out

I have just finished blocking your latest IP and protecting your sandbox so that you cannot continue editing it. You have been blocked from editing, and that means that you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia at all while the block remains in force. Any edit you make while you are blocked, even if you are logged out or logged in to a different account, is block evasion, and any edits made while evading a block will be reverted without question or exception. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, you must first appeal your block.

If you would like to do so, please read the discussion here concerning your conduct, especially your failure to respond to many editors' concerns. If you believe you understand why you are blocked and commit to proper communication going forward, then please proceed to the guide to appealing blocks and follow the instructions to submit an appeal. You must do this while logged in to your account - you are able to edit this page even though you are blocked. If you have questions please ask here, I will do my best to help.

Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of """

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 """, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
It is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

""" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect """. Since you had some involvement with the """ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xayahrainie43, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SCP-2000 06:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xayahrainie43, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SCP-2000 16:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"-2 (number)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect -2 (number) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#-2 (number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"-3 (number)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect -3 (number) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#-3 (number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"':'" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ':' and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#':' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ennation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ennation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Ennation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 10:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"˄" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ˄ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#˄ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"900-gon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 900-gon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#900-gon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 288 (number) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 288 (number) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/288 (number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]