User talk:DisUsernameUsed
DisUsernameUsed, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi DisUsernameUsed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
Embryonic development of animals moved to draftspace[edit]
An article you recently created, Embryonic development of animals, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GirthSummit (blether) 14:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there - I see you put a note on the article that it was still being developed, and it looked like you were trying to apply protection to it (that's something that only administrators can do). I thought it might be better for you to work on it in draft space, where it won't appear in the queues for new page reviewers - you'll be able to continue working on it until it's ready, then either submit it through WP:AfC or publish it yourself. Hope this is helpful, best GirthSummit (blether) 14:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Undiscussed page moves[edit]
Hi - why are you moving articles to new titles without discussion, and then reinstating your change when someone disagrees? And creating new one-line stubs with inappropriate in-article commentary after I draftified, explaining my action? I'm going to undo those changes - please discuss them on the relevant talk pages and gain consensus, or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I think I worked it out - you've moved that title several times today, but it looks like you moved it back to Embryonic development - that's good. Please read WP:RM#CM - someone reverted your original move, so you knew the move was controversial, you should not have moved the article again without discussion. I've deleted the new one-line stub (see below), please work on it in draft space and get it to the point where it offers something not already present at Embryonic development before reinstating into article space. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 15:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and one other point - you can't protect pages from editing by simply adding a 'protected page' template (you seem to have tried to do that that a couple of times now). Only an administrator can add protection to a page - the template gets added automatically when we do that, and removed automatically when the protection expires or is removed. You can request protection at WP:RfPP, but I don't see a valid reason for doing that to either of the pages you have added protection templates to. You can read more about protection at WP:PP. GirthSummit (blether) 15:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Embryonic development of animals[edit]
If this was the first article that you 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.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Embryonic development of animals. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Embryonic development. Because of the duplication, your article has been speedily deleted. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Embryonic development. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think the article you created should have remained separate, or 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Block requests[edit]
Decline #1 (No confidence in request.)[edit]
DisUsernameUsed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
When ever I went to a previous account of my own, I added citations or references in articles without even reading them (the citations or references). Before the block happened, I needed a way to delete my previous accounts though I didn't. Turns out two of my accounts (DisUsernameUsed and AnAnonymusWikipedian) would mostly be causing all the trouble (by me).
Decline reason:
This unblock request does not inspire confidence that you will comply with our policies and guidelines and edit constructively if unblocked. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 13 October 2020 (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.
Other[edit]
- Decline appeals cannot be removed from this page (see WP:BLANKING). I also removed your speedy deletion tag as user talk pages are not eligible for deletion.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note also that you retain access to this page in order to make an appeal, not to for whatever this is.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline #2[edit]
DisUsernameUsed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I probably think I understand. I didn't write constructively in my accounts on articles. That when my more recent accounts truly became sock puppet accounts, is that correct? If so, I'm very sorry. If not, I'm still sorry, and what is my mistake then?
Decline reason:
I am declining this unblock because of the answer to my question below. I see zero issues with unblocking an editor that is willing to make an attempt to make constructive edits to Wikipedia, but if you don't know what you're going to do if you're unblocked, there's not much point. If you decide "hey, I'm going to start editing articles related to <subject>", I would recommend asking again for an unblock. Until then, I highly suggest you maybe look at what types of edits other editors are making and see how things work around here. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2020 (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.
If you are unblocked, what do you plan on doing? Primefac (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know. I hope that I would improve in the future. DisUsernameUsed (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Understood. DisUsernameUsed (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
DisUsernameUsed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand, I had not written it constructively in the Osteological correlate page.
Decline reason:
This does not make sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2020 (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.
Welp, might as well give up.
Welp, here I am[edit]
I don’t know how I stooped this low. Should’ve just said “Making stuff about dinosaurs” but instead I said “i DoN’t KnOw, I sHoUlD iMpRoVe In ThE fUtUrE.” Gotta admit I had made three Wikipedia accounts in three different google accounts. I couldn’t remember what my password was for my first account so I decided to make a second account but my little brother said that he wanted to make edits on Wikipedia and I agreed. And finally, I made the third account. You might be thinking, “then why use three of your accounts to edit?” I suppose I missed editing on my old accounts and that’s when it came to this mess I caused to my accounts. I was pretty stupid to think I had a different reason to why I was blocked and so I made horrible reasons to why I should be unbanned and I decided to give up…. until I made this whole paragraph here. Hope you understand this. 2601:249:A00:7090:3495:91DC:1F0:E276 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Correction, I meant “Making edits about dinosaurs” 2601:249:A00:7090:3495:91DC:1F0:E276 (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)