User talk:LosAngeles000!
March 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Chabelo, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Architecture of Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ciudad Universitaria. 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) 06:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Please tone down the unencyclopedic tone, such as the one at Culture of Mexico. Please take a moment to read MOS:WTW. I see User:Drmargi also reverted your hard work at California State University, Los Angeles. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I came here to say something similar. The WTW link that Magnolia677 has given you is definitely worth reading. In nutshell, I'll say this: don't make subjective commentary in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not saying that our writing should be boring exactly, but it should be dry, neutral, factual, and devoid of emotive, figurative, persuasive or otherwise 'flowery' language. Next time you feel the urge to write about the
rich tapestry woven by Spanish influence
, or how afresh wave of Mexican artists spearheaded a dynamic national movement
, well, don't. Write things like 'Mexican culture was influenced by that of its Spanish colonisers', or 'according to <insert name of art critic who said it>, Artist A, Artist B and Artist C spearheaded a national movement in Mexican art in the 19<insertdecade>', that sort of thing. I know it's boring, but we are writing an encyclopedia, not a magazine. Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Certainly, I appreciate your feedback, and I'm here to assist you. Your commitment to maintaining a professional and encyclopedic tone is commendable. Please feel free to ask any questions or provide more information, and I'll be glad to assist you in achieving the desired style and tone. Your dedication to improving the quality of communication is valued, and I'm here to support your efforts. LosAngeles000! (talk)
September 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm Seawolf35. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sport in Mexico, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Seawolf35 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit (blether) 20:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)- Yeah, if your response to concerns is written by a LLM, you're not going to fit in here. You are wasting our contributors' time. Girth Summit (blether) 20:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
LosAngeles000! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My primary objective on Wikipedia is to make constructive and positive contributions while strictly adhering to Wikipedia's established policies and guidelines. I am actively engaged in implementing the suggestions provided to me, and my primary focus is on improving the grammatical accuracy of articles without introducing any false information or disruptive edits.
I have reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines on appealing blocks, and I genuinely believe there are valid reasons for requesting an unblock. I understand that my previous actions may have raised concerns, and I would like to address them.
My intention on Wikipedia is to contribute positively and constructively to the platform. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while collaborating with other editors to improve the quality of articles and the overall encyclopedia.
I recognize that my past actions may have caused disruptions or concerns among contributors. I deeply regret any inconvenience or frustration this may have caused. My goal is not to waste anyone's time but rather to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia.
I am here with the sincere intention of building an encyclopedia, and I am open to constructive feedback and guidance from experienced editors. I would appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate my commitment to Wikipedia's mission and to work harmoniously with the community. LosAngeles000! (talk)
Decline reason:
I am declining this request because it was clearly written by an AI bot. Because you are blocked, not an AI, we want to hear from you. This request would not work to get the AI unblocked anyway, being full of generalities that tell us nothing. Please write a request in your own words, specifically addressing the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2023 (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.
LosAngeles000! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
All edits were done in good intention. No false or miss lidding information was added. In addition, no extra information was added then to high light what was already there. The edits only were indented to add value to the articles by improving grammar not content. Given the edits the article seems to be of better quality then what was present at the time. If one looks at the history of the edits one will see that what I have stated is true. Having review Wikipedia policy if admittatur does not want me to edit article in this form, even if better in stander, I will comply. Once more only trying to add value to the articlesLosAngeles000! (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry to say, your ability to write English is insufficient to edit en.wikipedia. Please stick to your own native-language version. Yamla (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2023 (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.
LosAngeles000! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am continuedly working on my English having live in the USA all my life practically but occipitally due try to work and see if I can possess the diction and writing folklore most attributed to England. I have been formally training in the sciences, so I do not feel bad for not having the "ability to write English [in an] insufficient [manner] to edit en.wikipedia. I however can write in another language not that I consider it to be my native language, so I may try to edit other version. Nevertheless, I still feel I am in a position to continue to add to this en.wikipedia version, wither it be only in moving images, making them bigger, aliment, or adding references. All will be trying to collaborate with other editors. However, I do think there is a tone of explicit biases. Only trying to collaborate and add value to help humanity that is all. I will continue to try to adhere to Wikipedia's policies the best I can. I am only humane if this proves I am not an AI machine. As human I have faults, cannot be more human then human. Given AI cannot write this and is also limited. Please reconsider unblocking in the end no serious attend was made to say something that was not true. LosAngeles000! (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but this is not intelligible English. Your competence in English is insufficient for work on Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:00, 20 September 2023 (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 is incoherent and firmly demonstrates WP:CIR. --Yamla (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
To add table with data, graphs, and fix images? LosAngeles000! (talk)
Very well, I've decided to invest my time in living life rather than attempting to assist further. However, I do perceive a deficiency in intelligence within previous administrative decisions, coupled with an overarching issue of bigotryLosAngeles000! (talk)
ANI notice[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)