User talk:Eltomas2003

Welcome!

Hello, Eltomas2003, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this 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!--Biografer (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Toi8

The article Toi8 has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days 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/dated}} 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. Loopy30 (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Hi, could you explain why you changed the tag on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article from GA to FA? I have reverted your edits - as you can see from article milestones, it was not promoted to FA status. BytEfLUSh | Talk 02:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I assumed it was something like that, just wanted to be sure. :) Promoting an article to FA is not something that can be unilaterally done by a single editor, there is a process that must take place for an article to achieve FA status. I'm not heavily involved with the article you want to promote to FA, but starting here might be helpful: WP:FAC. You should also seek opinions from more editors on the article's talk page. I hope to see it achieving FA status soon, and thank you for your contributions to the project. Best wishes, BytEfLUSh | Talk 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating articles at FAC

Please DO NOT submit any articles to WP:Featured article candidates that you haven't worked on yourself or consulted major contributors beforehand. The instructions on that page even state Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Your recent drive-by nominations are therefore inappropriate since you failed to do either of those. When you do submit something there in the future, it should be something YOU worked extensively on to ensure it meets WP:Featured article criteria unless you at least have first talked with those who've done lots of work on the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this also applies to Good article nominations: the instructions have a similar statement about nominators who are not significant contributors needing to consult those who are beforehand—that consultation will take at least a week to complete, to allow sufficient time for replies. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eltomas, is there a reason you are still nominating articles at FAC without following the instructions? I'm not clear about what you are not understanding about this process. Please do NOT make any further nominations at FAC disregarding the instructions. --Laser brain (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following the instructions. You are required to be a major contributor to the article before even considering a nomination for Featured articles status. In addition, the article should conform to the standards (see WP:WIAFA). I understand that you are acting in good faith, but you are not following instructions and you need more experience editing Wikipedia before you have an understanding of this level of article quality. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you, so please reply if you need additional clarification. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20-JAN-2018

Hello Eltomas2003, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Kirby's Dream Land have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Barbeque Pork Ribs

If this is the first article that you have 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, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Barbeque Pork Ribs, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Barbecue. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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 Barbecue, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and 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. reddogsix (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Laser brain (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or if it's an issue of WP:CIR, but due to your continued episodes of vandalism and failure to read/comprehend basic directions, you're not going to be allowed to edit further. --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2018 (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).

Eltomas2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've stopped vandalizing after my final warning, I believe that Laser Brain is just finding excuses for me being blocked, I think I don't deserve to be blocked, I've been using instinct to edit Wikipedia and the only directions I don't really follow are FAC's and I do it for good faith. Eltomas2003 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So we unblock you and risk you vandalizing or being disruptive? Just looking for excuses? Really? All LaserBrain being mean? NO! Blocking is not punishment-- what one deserves is irrelevant. Blocking is a measure to prevent damage and disruption. I also see a competence issue. Apparently your "instincts" have been wrong. PS- If any other admin feels differently, feel free to unblock. But I do not see it at this point. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2018 (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).

Eltomas2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Lets do native American restorative Justice, you probably known why I was blocked on Wikipedia, but I didn't really know that better, I'd like to have a mentor guide me. I want to ask the question, Why is Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and policies in general so strict? Eltomas2003 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. If you want to ask questions, please use the {{helpme}} template. If you make another unblock request like this or the one above (which, by the way, you are not permitted to remove) your access to edit this talkpage will be revoked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:16, 29 January 2018 (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.

I couldn't help but notice you reverted my decline. I will leave it to the next admin to deal with that and to answer your question in the current unblock request. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin but I'll weigh in here. To answer your question: The policy on vandalism is strict because the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedia with accurate information. Deliberately interfering with that, even if you think it's just a bit of fun, is inappropriate.

Aside from that, I do believe you are trying to contribute. Mentorship is an option, like with the adopt-a-user program. Another option is to ask questions on places like the Teahouse where other editors can help you. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Dlocierkim, You could be more polite when you reject my appeal to unblock, Heres the Original: So we unblock you and risk you vandalizing or being disruptive? Just looking for excuses? Really? All LaserBrain being mean? NO! Blocking is not punishment-- what one deserves is irrelevant. Blocking is a measure to prevent damage and disruption. I also see a competence issue. Apparently your "instincts" have been wrong. PS- If any other admin feels differently, feel free to unblock. But I do not see it at this point.

Here's my rewritten form: I'm sorry, but right now we can't trust you, if we unblock. I don't think that Laser Brain is trying to be mean and find excuses. Blocking isn't punishment, even through it might feel like it. It's supposed to prevent Wikipedia from being a mess. Also, we're not sure if you're ready to edit Wikipedia if you rely on your gut all the time.

You see how it makes people feel better, rather than the sharp and biting words of the original and still gets to the point, the only thing you could not change is PS- If any other admin feels differently, feel free to unblock. But I do not see it at this point. Also Anon126 is right, I could be a great contributer, I say we compromise, I get unblocked, but an admin would watch me all the time monitoring my every move Toodles ^_^ Eltomas2003 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2018 (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).

Eltomas2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I say we compromise, I get unblocked, but an admin would watch me all the time monitoring my every move, Also Anon126 is right, I could be a great contributer. Toodles ^_^ Eltomas2003 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your recent history of vandalism, copyright violation, unwillingness to follow policy and unwillingness to listen to the advice of others, the onus is on you to persuade us that you have something worthwhile to contribute and are willing to abide by English Wikipedia's norms in so doing. It's not for you to be setting us conditions for your unblock, particularly when they're obviously unreasonable conditions such as demanding an admin review your every edit. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 3 February 2018 (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.

In peace and joy

I came to thank you for the translations to Spanish, of Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 (Con paz y alegría yo depart), and es:Candaules, rey de Lidia, muestra a su mujer escondiendo a Giges, uno de sus ministros, mientras se va a la cama. Thank you, you seem to have an exquisite taste ;) - I don't quite know what to think of the above. Only contributors to an article can nominate for FA? No, - after talking to the major contributors, anybody can do that (as BlueMoonset explained correctly for Good articles (GA)), and I do it a lot. I am willing to try to guide you, not every step, but questions and answers here. First step: please reply where a question is raised, - it's just easier for someone else to follow. Second step: go slowly. Third step: avoid everything that might even look remotely like copyright violation. - I am not an admin, though, and never want to be one. - Laser Brain, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eltomas2003. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:58, 11 February 2018 (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).

Eltomas2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admin who is reading this, thank you for taking your time to read my appeal for a block. First of all I'm sorry that I vandalized Wikipedia and was Naïve enough that I didn't understand the directions for Nominating Featured articles multiple times, I promise I'll never do this again. First of all the reason why created a new account was because I wanted to WP:FRESHSTART not to evade a block, this account was a chance for me to not repeat the same mistakes that I had in my old account (the same account that I'm writing this appeal on) The reason why I bend the truth on how long I vandalized on the teahouse discussions was to avoid prosecution by Admins. I do have intentions, I've written the entire development section of Kirby Super Star and Kirby's Adventure translated multiple FAs into Spanish. I only ask for your mentorship and together we can start over fresh. Best wishes Eltomas2003 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Users who may not have a clean start: Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions..." and "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas [...]". You either didn't even read the page you're arguing you were trying to follow, or you were unable to understand and follow it. Either way, that would show that you lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Given that you admit to "bending the truth" to "avoid prosecution by admins", I have to conclude that you were well aware that what you were doing was wrong, and that you're misrepresenting your intentions in this very unblock request: Yes, evading a block was precisely what you wanted to do. Huon (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2018 (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).

Eltomas2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can I please have a chance of redemption and learn how to become productive?(p.s I'm just a kid, go easy on me) Eltomas2003 (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Any chance of redemption will be after abstaining from editing (and socking) for 6 months. Clearly you have competence issuesas well. You can demonstrate your newfound ability to edit constructively after 6 months. ANd this nonsense about being a kid. Puhlease! We've had admins, and wp:bureaucrats, and some other damn fine editors who started as kids. I've revoked your talk pafe access. In 6 months appeal at WP:UTRS. Each time you edit it restarts the 6 month timer. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2018 (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.

February 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]