Jump to content

User talk:24.1.4.241

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.1.4.241 (talk) at 12:18, 26 September 2008 (→‎Block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, 24.1.4.241, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Buzz Aldrin have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Tan ǀ 39 01:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Godzilla in popular culture. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Avatar isn't a featured article Veggy (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Final warning: Avatar is NOT a featured article Veggy (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

September 1 is aleady scheduled, and Avatar has already run on the mainpage. Please stop disrupting WP:TFA/R or you can be blocked. Also, please be aware of WP:3RR, as edit warring can also result in a block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to 2016 Summer Olympics bids appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Please refrain from adding unreferenced opinion. All data, especially contentious data, must be supported byreliable sources. I strongly urge you to become familiar with wikipedia policies to avoid having your edits reverted. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please use the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests to discuss your requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR

The only articles that can be requested for "today's featured article" are articles that have reviewed and listed at WP:FA, and have not been on the main page before. Monty Python's Flying Circus has not passed the FA review. Gimmetrow 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.



Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Be more careful in the future. Block presumably not necessary to prevent further problems.

Request handled by: Gimmetrow 10:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

24.1, now that you've been unblocked and know how to read your talk page, here are some tips for editing.

Regarding your GA nominations, you might want to first take advantage of the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to learn how to invite WP:PRV volunteers to a peer review to work an article up to good standards.

Regarding your requests at WP:TFA/R,

  1. Only articles listed at WP:FA can be submitted to WP:TFA/R
  2. Only article that haven't already appeared on the main page should be submitted (you can see if an article has already run on the main page by checking the article talk page)
  3. Only 5 articles may appear at WP:TFA/R at any time, so if there are already five there and you want to replace one, it has to have more points than the article you are replacing
  4. Dates which have already been scheduled can't be submitted to WP:TFA/R.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing stuff from your talk page

I assume your question was in reference to removing stuff from your talk page. You're pretty much allowed to remove stuff from your talk/user page at any time with the exception of:

Saying that, WP:Archiving is preferred to deletion, but it's still ok, just to remove them. Removing a warning is ok because it is tacit acknowledgement of the warning, although it's sort of a good idea to leave them up for a while. Removing them immediately tends to annoy the person that left them and makes you more likely to get another one (IMHO).

Thanks for asking. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominations

Neither Spanair [1] nor Asterix the Gaul [2] are close to "Good article" standards. Both have only a few references, and Asterix only has a one-sentence lead section. Please consider working on articles until you're familiar with the way Wikipedia works. Gimmetrow 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again; nominating articles that have no business being nominated. -- Veggy (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to your question on my page, 24.1 -- Veggy (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.1, please read WP:WIAGA, familiarize yourself with some GA standards by browsing articles at WP:GA, and take advantage of peer review as pointed out in WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to work an article up to standard before nomination. Nominating premature articles taxes other editors and could be viewed as disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nominations

24.1, as already explained to you by several editors above, you should first learn Wiki policies and guidelines and work an article through peer review, then perhaps good articles to familiarize yourself with Wiki before approaching WP:FAC. Please read the many requests and reminders above before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on some articles for a while. Once you've worked on one article for a long time, then nominate it for GA. That means more than one or two edits - it probably means something in the ballpark of 100 edits before your first article will be at GA quality. And if you come across a fairly developed article like iPhone, the editors already working on the article probably have some idea whether they are ready to take it through a GA nomination - you should at least ask first. Gimmetrow 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance offer

Hi 24.1.4.241. It looks like you are very eager to help with some articles but don't know what the best way is to do that. May I suggest that you first register for a username? People often take edits from a username more seriously than an edit from an IP address. Secondly, I highly recommend that you don't worry right now about getting an article to good article or featured article status. That is a lot of work, and it usually requires a familiarity with wikipedia guidelines and policies. The Good article and Featured article processes are A Big Deal here, and it is considered disruptive to nominate a lot of articles that don't meet the promotion criteria. It is also generally considered good etiquette to only nominate articles that you have put a lot of work into; editors who have exerted a lot of effort to improve an article deserve the recognition when an article is promoted. Until you are familiar with the policies and guidelines, please do not nominate any more articles for GA or FA status. If you are truly interested in improving articles, I would be happy to help you figure out what steps you need to take. Just leave a message on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've seen some of your edits, and I really appreciate the contributions you're making to Wikipedia. I'm glad you're helping the project! You may wish to consider creating an account. It's quick, free, and anonymous (you don't have to give away any real-world information about yourself).

When you're logged in, you can do many things that unregistered users cannot, such as creating new pages, uploading media content, moving pages and keeping track of changes to articles you edit frequently. It helps the community, too — Wikipedians will be more likely to remember who you are when you have an account name!

If you want more information on the benefits of creating an account, click here. And once you've registered, please drop me a message and say hi! Don't forget to sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~).--Joshuagross (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get a username without an account - otherwise, how would WP know it was you? Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you just said. Joshua was suggesting that this user might enjoy getting a username, which involves registering, wasn't he? There's nothing preventing this user from doing that, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a reply from a question the IP asked on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Bid images

Hello. I was wondering why you think it is desirable to place candidate bid images on the main Olympics page, such as in the 2004 Summer Olympics article. These images are already contained in the 2004 Summer Olympics bids article. Please respond on the WikiProject Olympics talk page. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiProject Olympics talk page. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Iraq Veterans Against the War has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles; use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. «JavierMC»|Talk 01:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for being (Under WP:Duck) - A sock puppet of User:NewWorld98. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS talk 04:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
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).

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

Request reason:

I have been a puppet to the NewWorld 98 foundations. I know what I did was wrong and I was abused to appeal to New World's schemes, but I think being barred for 1 year is too harsh. I know I deserve a punishment, but please lower it to a Month - Three months.24.1.4.241 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please log in to request an unblock. Your account has been blocked indefinitely, and we are better able to review your contributions from your account than here. If your account is unblocked, this IP address likely will be as well. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:02, 25 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was a puppet to New World98. Should I be punished because i made one mistake? I have been following the rules since the day Gimmetrow had pardoned me but I'm still paying the price for it and this price is way too harsh on me (I even fixed the mistakes I made). So I think my block should be lifted or have it for only one or two months. Please try to quell my woe and deliver a softer punishment or pardon me.

Decline reason:

Please log in to request an unblock. Your account has been blocked indefinitely, and we are better able to review your contributions from your account than here. If your account is unblocked, this IP address likely will be as well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:44, 26 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I know you guys want me to log in to unblock it, but this block also appealed to my account, so this is all I got. This block has already... changed me. I 'm now ready to plead... No beg you to give a sentence of only one month or two months or to lift the block. Please lift the block and let me help Wikipedia as best as I can and repaired the damages I have lefted during when I was a puppet to New World 98. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Agree with prior decline rationale given above. Please log in to request an unblock. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2008 (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.

What do you mean log in to request an unblock?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.1.4.241&oldid=241110847"