User talk:Zyxcba

Welcome!

Hello, Zyxcba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Yun Na-Rae, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yun Na-Rae

The article Yun Na-Rae has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Carlotta Ferlito. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. PM800 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mykayla Skinner, you may be blocked from editing. PM800 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not leaving a formal notice but I ask you to cite a reliable, verifiable source for your recent addition to Angelina Kysla. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Carlotta Ferlito. Onel5969 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Carlotta Ferlito has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Carlotta Ferlito was changed by Zyxcba (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957834 on 2014-11-10T02:40:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aliya Mustafina. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Aliya Mustafina was changed by Zyxcba (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.960827 on 2014-11-10T02:45:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mfield (Oi!) 02:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ana Porgras, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Ana Porgras was changed by Zyxcba (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.95055 on 2014-11-11T21:32:27+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Ana Porgras

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! TranquilHope (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christian Jessen. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Christian Jessen was changed by Zyxcba (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.881084 on 2014-11-19T12:21:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Aliya Mustafina

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Aliya Mustafina), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing ~~because your account is being used only for vandalism~~ for persistent vandalism, as you did at Johnny Weir, despite a previous 24-hour block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Edited 03:15, 13 February 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

although I did vandalise the page Johnny Weir this account has not been used only for vandalism and an indefinite block is too harsh a consequence.21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)~

Decline reason:

The possible positive contributions from this account do not condone the repeated vandalism. Had this been the first time this had occurred, perhaps an unblock would have been reasonable; however, "fool me twice, shame on me." Kinu ^t/_c 04:31, 13 February 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand what i did was wrong. I promise to never persist actions of vandalism ever again and plead for a repeal of indefinite blockZyxcba (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but there's a history of pretty severe vandalism to biographies of living persons, including what appears to be homophobic remarks. There needs to be a much more comprehensive explanation for your edits and your plans to move forward. "Aw shucks" doesn't do it. Kuru (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have only had 3 warnings in the past. One of these is out of good nature and a single 24 hour block with no warning. The edit made to Johnny Weir was not homophobic. It was an idiotic decision. However, despite the idiotic acts that, whether people believe me or not I am sincerely sorry for doing, I have made useful contributions such as the creation of the page Yun- Na Rae and many edits such as to Kyla Ross, Aselina Sotnikova, Aliya Mustafina, Yulia Lipnitskaya, Elisabeth Seitz, Daria Spiridoniva, Yulia Galysheva, Chloe Dufour Lapointe, Qi Guangpu, Xu Mengtao and Haanah Kearney and have made many more contributions than just the pages I have listed. I have made bad decisions and promise to never do them again. All I ask for is one last chance to prove that I do not seek to vandalise or criticise people's pages and am genuine to make useful contributions.Zyxcba (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, I suggest that a standard offer approach could be taken in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new apeal in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have reviewed standards for a usual situation where an indefinite block and I have not met the requirements, I have made useful contributions and ask for a 2nd chance procedure to come into play in my situation.Zyxcba (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you never provide references for your edits it's impossible to tell whether they're useful or not. For all I can tell you might just as well be slipping subtle falsehoods into articles. Since you have inserted claims such as this, for which I rather doubt you can provide a reliable source, we cannot simply accept your word for how useful those unsourced additions are. And I doubt you really want to claim a warning was necessary to tell you something like this edit was inappropriate, do you? Arguing technicalities such as the amounts of warnings you received before we put a permanent stop to your vandalism won't get you unblocked. Huon (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (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've posted multiple unblock requests that fail to take responsibility for your actions. Given that nothing productive will come of any such requests, I've revoked your talk page access. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:30, 14 February 2015 (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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.