User talk:90.243.79.125

February 2024[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Cherokee syllabary, 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 the 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. You infobox additions need to be supported in the article. If you lack direct sources, you can raise the issue on the talk page to build consensus and help uncover evidence for the change. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong? 90.243.79.125 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added material without sources that is not supported by the article. In this specific case, there's nothing in the article that supports the assertion that Sequoyah's syllabary is more than incidentally connected to Egyptian hieroglyphics or other earlier scripts. Adding that without a source is considered the sort of original research that is not allowed. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can clearly see from the glyphs the Cherokee syllabary looks quite like Latin/Cyrillic/Armenian/Georgian/Greek letters/numbers which all come from the Greek alphabet (bruh that’s obvious for the Greek letters) and Hindu-Arabic numbers come from Brahmi numerals and both Greek and (theoretically) Brahmi come from the Phoenician alphabet and the Phoenician alphabet came from the Proto Canaanite script and so on. 90.243.79.125 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like" isn't sufficient evidence here, which is what makes it WP:OR. Even if characters in the Cherokee syllabary resemble characters in other writing systems, doesn't make them related. The Hangul letter ㄷ resembles the Latin letter C, the Cyrillic letter С, the Elder Futhark ᛈ, etc., it doesn't mean they're related. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but remember how the Cherokee syllabary was created, u see, Sequoyah was illiterate but was aware of writing and wanted a writing system for his native language so he looked for many glyphs in texts and so so, with a history like this, I think the appearance of the letters is too much of a coincidence. 90.243.79.125 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very very sorry if I unintentionally did anything wrong but all my contributions were meant to be useful and they were definitely not disruptive. 90.243.79.125 (talk) 9:54 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

As you do not understand the disruptive nature of your edits, I cannot unblock you. Please reread the messages on your talk page and address those concerns. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very very sorry if I unintentionally did anything wrong but all my contributions were meant to be useful and they were definitely not disruptive. Also I will not do original research again. And I will always look for reliable sources.90.243.79.125 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you continue to think that your edits were appropriate, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very very sorry if I unintentionally did anything wrong but all my contributions were meant to be useful and they were definitely not disruptive. Also I will not do original research again. And I will always look for reliable sources. Here are some things I have to say for example my revisions on Glagolitic script well some are accurate, some are not, e.g the origins of nash’, shtapic yer’, Jo, ju and izhitsa are all what u consider “original research” BUT some are true like the origins of izhej and djerv’ and as for well the origins of on’ its Cyrillic descendants the hard sign and soft sign have origins in the Semitic ‘ayin implying on’ and modified letters based on it have something to do with the letter O and as for the letter slovo it seems to have the same origin as izhej and a side note here is that when the Glagolitic script was made in 862 the apostrophe was not yet invented so the shtapic yer’ couldn’t have been based of the apostrophe [1] anyway as for jons’(Ⱙ), just look at it, does it look like a ligature of Jo(Ⱖ) and ens’(Ⱔ)?90.243.79.125 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You appear to be unable to understand what has been said to you, as you are still repeating things which have already been explained to you as not suitable. For example, you have still not grasped the point that saying what you think something "looks like", "seems to have", or "couldn’t have been based [on]" etc is not a justification for determining what content should be in an article. You also persist with the line that your edits "were definitely not disruptive"; if you honestly can't see why they were, even after the problems have been explained to you, then you will not be able to avoid making the same mistakes again; therefore, far from persuading me that unblocking would be beneficial, your unblock requests make me wonder whether the block time should be increased. JBW (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2024 (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.

90.243.79.125 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your unblock requests at the bottom of the page. Your comment "just look at it" does not demonstrate a great depth of commitment to verifiability. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Yogh, 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 the 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. 90.243.79.125 please stop your unsourced, disruptive edits. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Long Es (February 14)[edit]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Long Es and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 90.243.79.125! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block, February 2024[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 15 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

What did I do wrong this time? 90.243.79.125 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (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.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I have increased the block length, as this IP address has been used to evade a block on another IP address. JBW (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can u respond to my unblock request? 90.243.79.125 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smash or pass

Please unblock me 90.243.79.125 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have posted spam on this page while blocked, I have removed your ability to edit the page. JBW (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Long Es (February 15)[edit]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Cannot cite to other Wikipedia articles

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Long Es and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.