Jump to content

User talk:Angelgreat

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

Your unblocking

I have just seen that it took almost five months from my restoring talk page access to enable you to request an unblock to your actually being unblocked. That must have been extremely frustrating for you, and I apologise for having just left your case for others to review; I would certainly have taken a more active part if I had had any idea what a hard job it would be for you to get unblocked. However, now that you are unblocked I hope that you can soon start constructive editing, and that your future time here will go more smoothly than has happened in the past. JBW (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Viking Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aliaga. 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) 06:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grandfather clauses

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Grandfather clause into List of Grandfather clauses. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trouts

Why are you "trouting" people without even saying what it's for? That's pointless, and I'd be prepared to call it disruptive if it continues. Please stop. Bishonen | tålk 22:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I was bored and I wanted to entertain myself a bit without disrupting anyone and the trout seemed like a good idea. I'll stop trouting right now. Angelgreat (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. "I was bored" is a really poor reason. Perhaps do something that doesn't impact others, like pimping up your userpage? Bishonen | tålk 22:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean), is not suitable 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. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DanCherek 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:
This draft does not cite any sources. Information in the draft needs to be verifiable by including references to reliable, independent secondary sources.
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 when they have been resolved.
DanCherek (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Angelgreat! Having an article 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! DanCherek (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) (July 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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 when they have been resolved.
Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) (July 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability
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 when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ProClasher97 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Most of the sources used here are not reliable, secondary sources. Blogs are not reliable sources, and Royal Caribbean's website is a primary source, not a secondary source.
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 when they have been resolved.
ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 15:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kidnapping of Paul Fronczak (July 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:
This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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 when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bkissin 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.
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Oasis-class cruise ship. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I agree with ProClasher97's assessment here. The slide is not independently notable. If you want to write about it, add some of the information to the existing article about Harmony of the Seas (where it first appeared) or the Oasis-class cruise ship (where it seems to be a standard feature).
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 when they have been resolved.
Bkissin (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Viking Crown Lounge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Viking Crown Lounge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viking Crown Lounge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Information icon Hello, I'm Hulmem. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Windows Virtual PC, 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. hulmem (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Information icon I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Caledonian Canal, 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. Stroness (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cunard Line, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I have also noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Blue Riband► 01:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Olympic-class ocean liner has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Llammakey. I noticed that you recently removed content from SS Traffic without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aquitania scrap Faslane.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aquitania scrap Faslane.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympic scrap Jarrow.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Olympic scrap Jarrow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources - and sources to avoid.

Hello, I noticed that you've been adding a lot of content to Four funnel liner and other articles without providing reliable sources. On Wikipedia we're expected to provide a source for any content that we add to articles. What's a "reliable source"? You may find WP:RS helpful. In Sharp Nintendo Television there was content based on a Youtube video. In general, Youtube is not considered a reliable source as the videos are user-generated with minimal fact checking and zero editorial oversite. You can find an explaination at WP:RSPYT and WP:GENREL. Blue Riband► 02:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Riband: I do go back at times to add sources, but couldn't other users add sources too? Angelgreat (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of us should use sources whenever we add content to an article. When an editor fails to do that then any other editor has the right to remove that content. Blue Riband► 02:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Famicom Hitler

A tag has been placed on Famicom Hitler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FFD closes

You're welcome to comment further in the discussions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 12#File:Aquitania scrap Faslane.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 12#File:Olympic scrap Jarrow.jpg if you like, but you shouldn't try close those discussion per the reasons given in WP:NACD. If you'd like to request that an uninvolved administrator close the discussions, the you can do so at WP:ANRFC, or possibly even at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. If you'd like to try and get others involved in the discussion, you can do so as long as you follow the guidance in WP:CANVAS. I'm assuming that you were just unaware that it's improper for an editor (including administrators) to close discussions like this whose outcomes they have a vested interest in; so, others are just going to assume it was just a good-faith mistake this time. Other editors might not be so understanding, on the other hand, if you try to do the same thing again. The discussion will eventually be closed by an administrator and you can always follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you disagree with or have questions about the outcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp Nintendo Television

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sharp Nintendo Television, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not re-introduce content without citing a Reliable Source as descirbed at WP:RS. Youtube videos and blogs generally are not reliable as they are self-published with neither fact checking nor editorial oversight as outlined here: WP:USERGENERATED.

Since you obviously have an interest in early 20th century ships, you may want to check out the Wikiprojet Ships at WP:SHIPS for guidance. Blue Riband► 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Riband:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Also, I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I was trying to ve helpful. I'm still a bit rusty here after being blocked for around two years. I'm not trying to create issues with citing sources, but I'll check for reliable sources next time. Angelgreat (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a lot to learn. I may have been WP:HOUNDING you as I was involved in a recent WP:ANI about an editor who made prolific sequential edits. He made some good gramatical edits but those were interwoven with edits where he also inserted a LOT of unverified content. This kind of editing pattern is very difficult to clean up without picking through the page history and comparing each version. It would help build your editorial reputation if you would always fill in the edit summary field. This is very helpful because it lets other editors know what you did. Even a short one is better than none at all. When we see an edit with (+1248) characters added or (-3721) characters deleted but no edit summary that can raise a red flag. You'll find that people can be very helpful in explaining what might be wrong and will point you to the right policy so you can improve your knowledge and skills. Blue Riband► 23:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from White Star Line into Cunard-White Star Line. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Eugenioc.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Eugenioc.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: That was 5 years ago, I haven't touched or uploaded to the file since. Angelgreat (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I was just letting you now as a courtesy since you also uploaded a version of the file. I can't see previous versions of the file that have been hidden by administrators; so, I'm not sure they're exactly the same. If this notice doesn't apply to you, then my apologies. You can remove it (and my post) if you want per WP:BLANKING. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Four funnel liner, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You undid my reversion and made a summary "will add sources later". Please do not restore unsourced material unless and until you can cite your sources. Blue Riband► 01:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Parallels Workstation, you may be blocked from editing. No sources were cited to support the cause of the platform's demise. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS regarding unsupported assertations. Blue Riband► 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Azamara Quest shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also applies to other Azamara articles. Naming of a ship class needs a Reliable Source just like every other article - the only source you provided on the class article was dated 2006, Azamara only bought these ships in 2007. I shall start a discussion on the class page Lyndaship (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Afghan frozen assets for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Afghan frozen assets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan frozen assets until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated uncited material to 9/11 victim articles

Please stop adding uncited or unsupported material to articles, as you did with your edits to David Angell,Berry Berenson, and Garnet Bailey. The source you cited for the Angell article makes no mention of the recovery of his remains, and you cited no source for your addition to the other articles. You've already been warned about this numerous times over the course of the past few months. Please stop violating these policies. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Infidel Castro" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Infidel Castro. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 18#Infidel Castro until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MarioGom (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Salami's Law" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Salami's Law. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 19#Salami's Law until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of IROI

The page IROI has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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 this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hello, Angelgreat,

I just deleted several inappropriate redirects you created for Dick Cheney that could be construed as attack pages. Please do not insert your political point-of-view in your editing on Wikipedia, behavior like that can lead to you being blocked again which I'm sure you don't want. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelgreat, to follow this up, you may have noticed a significant number of redirects that you've made have ended up being deleted. Wikipedia has a guideline, WP:R, that covers the purposes for creating redirects and the cases when one might be considered for deletion, which you may want to review. Respectfully, /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Riband here again Angelgreat. "UKOGBAI" redirect has been nominated under R3, Implausible typos. You've continued to create a lot of re-directs. May I suggest that you follow Tqpwkoaa's advice and review WP:R before proceeding further. Under WP:COMPETENCE one should "...avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." Blue Riband► 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"UKOGBAI" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect UKOGBAI. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24#UKOGBAI until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blue Riband► 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to edit and revert an official portrait, especially without a talk page consensus, as you did at Justin Trudeau, you may be blocked from editing. Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Azamara-class cruise ship" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Azamara-class cruise ship. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 4#Azamara-class cruise ship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lyndaship (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hitomi Soga.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hitomi Soga.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Muzilon (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ship lengthening moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ship lengthening, is not suitable 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. ... discospinster talk 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Super NES Classic Edition, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: Wait, i'm blocked again? I didn't do anything wrong, I was trying to source my edits. I'm sorry if my edits were not perfect, but please don't block me indefinitely. Angelgreat (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a massive line of warnings on this talk page since your unblock, most of them about the same issues you were originally blocked for, and no evidence you're heeding them. In reviewing just your last 50 edits from the past two days, I've found numerous unsourced and WP:OR edits requiring reversion. -- ferret (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: Some of them, I can explain those issues. For example, The Ship lengthening draft is a draft, so I hadn't added sources to it yet, but I planned to do so. As for the others, some are just corrections or fixes to the article. I also have added some sources to the edits to try to avoid any issues. I wasn't trying to do anything wrong. I'm still getting used to editing here again, but I wasn't trying to repeat the same mistakes from the past. Angelgreat (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa was wrong giving that copyright warning above. She should have blocked you instead. MER-C 16:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pure WP:OR speculation tied to a source that makes no mention of the subject, Calling a withdrawal over Covid a "boycott" without sourcing, Simple but unsourced name changes to ships, Editorializing, A long list of unsourced and/or NPOV changes, going back months, A completely unsourced list of ship names, Another small but unsourced ship name changes, Large completely unsourced paragraph detailing BLP details about multiple individuals, Substantial unsourced edits and OR, tying the matter to Gwang-su with no apparent source that supports it, plus an excessive quotation (copyvio-ish). Now, I'm happy to be proven wrong on any of these, that I missed a particular source that did in fact cover all these details. But these examples are all simply from the last two days (Though some of them include earlier edits). There's months of similar edits here that still need reviewed and likely reverted. That's without even taking into consideration the numerous warnings in the last two months. You know how to appeal, perhaps you can convince a reviewing admin. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret:Wow, that's a lot of links. Here's some explanations to those accusations.

Look, i'm not trying to cause issues or a war here, I was trying to help. I'm not trying to do any harm here, I was trying to add and fix information here. I wasn't recreating deleted pages without crediting users or attacking admins like what happened in the past. I have changed and I do want to help Wikipedia. If you don't accept it, I'll understand.Angelgreat (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm confident you understand how to follow WP:GAB and appeal. I'm not going to reply to each of the above, but I'll note several places you say "I was re-adding something removed by others". Perhaps they removed it for a reason. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Riband, an admitted Wikihound, here again Angelgreat. Some of us here have tried to point you to the appropriate Wikipedia standards when there are problems with your editing. Just looking at what you have done this past month I see no edit summaries. You added unsourced content to Princess Charlotte of Cambridge here and to Untopia here. You also create a LOT of new pages that involve creation of implausable acronyms and synonyms and then make re-directs as displayed here. Who would look up "Windows XCV" and need a redirect to find "Windows 95" when even Microsoft never referred its operating systems in Roman Numerals? You have created 29 pages but 18 were eventually deleted, and uploaded 13 files with 10 being deleted as shown here. That's a pretty poor batting average. Blue Riband► 18:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on this, I think it's time to take a break from here. I'll take time off and then when I'm ready, I'll appeal the block.Angelgreat (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John Lenon Dead.jpeg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Lenon Dead.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 1, 2021

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I forgot to attach some sources and add a summary to my edits and I got blocked for that, as it consituted disruptive edits. I am still getting used to editing again on Wikipedia after having been unblocked around 6 months ago and I'm trying to make good contributions here, but with COVID and other issues, it can be stressful. Please unblock me and I'll make sure not to forget to add sources to my future edits. Happy Halloween. Angelgreat (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the history of disruptive editing stretching back years, and happening again immediately after you were unblocked, I'm sorry to say Wikipedia just isn't the place for you. Maybe it's stress, maybe it's WP:CIR, but either way, I'm afraid this is the end here. Until you build up a substantial history of constructive edits elsewhere, demonstrating you thoroughly understand copyright and sourcing to reliable sources, there's no reasonable chance you'll be unblocked on en.wiki. Yamla (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2021 (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.

October 9, 2021

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I forgot to attach some sources and add a summary to my edits and I got blocked for that, as it consituted disruptive edits. I am still getting used to editing again on Wikipedia after having been unblocked around 6 months ago and I'm trying to make good contributions here, but with COVID and other issues, it can be stressful at times. I'm trying not to make the same mistakes from the past, but that seems to lead me to be blocked again. I know what copyright is and I know how not to attack users. I'm not a teenager anymore, I'm a young adult. Please unblock me and I'll make sure not to forget to add sources to my future edits. I don't want to be blocked forever and I do want to be a contributing Wikipedian, but I need time to properly readjust myself to here after almost 2.5 years of previously being blocked. Angelgreat (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2021 (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 reiterate, no admin is likely to unblock you in the foreseeable future, not until you build up a substantial history of constructive edits elsewhere, demonstrating you thoroughly understand copyright and sourcing to reliable sources. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Why are you reviewing my block requests, you even said on Wikimedia Commons to "Do not contact me again. Anywhere. Ever.". I'm not sure if Ferret chose you to review my blocks or not, but this is unfair. I have long apologized and I'm not trying to bring up my past actions, but please leave me alone. Angelgreat (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've no intent to unblock you myself. I do not believe your editing will improve. Typically, unblock appeals are reviewed by an administrator other than the blocking admin. Yamla is one of those who most often handle appeals here. It's not about apologizing, it's about demonstrating that the issues will not continue to occur. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Kidnapping of Paul Fronczak

Information icon Hello, Angelgreat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kidnapping of Paul Fronczak, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 9, 2022

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, It's a new year and a new chance for me to be a better Wikipedian here. If you're wondering how I got blocked, I forgot to attach some sources and add a summary to my edits and I got blocked for that, as it consituted disruptive edits. I am still getting used to editing again on Wikipedia after having been unblocked around 6 months ago and I'm trying to make good contributions here, but with COVID, my autism, and other issues, it can be hard at times.

I'm trying not to make the same mistakes from the past. I know what copyright is and I know how not to attack users. I'm not a teenager anymore, I'm a young adult. Please unblock me and I'll make sure not to forget to add sources to my future edits. I don't want to be blocked forever, especially after almost 2.5 years of previously being blocked. I don't plan to edit just Cruise ships, I also want to edit stuff I enjoy like Doctor Who, Macs, Baseball and Windows 11. I have also uploaded contributing images on Wikimedia Commons and have not cross-attacking users unlikein the past. Please unblock me and happy new year. Angelgreat (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your only avenue to unblock is through the standard offer, which means no editing the English Wikipedia for six months. For editing anonymously on April 4, 2022, you have reset the clock and now need to wait until at least October 4, 2022, to be unblocked. We can't trust that you'll follow our rules when unblocked if you can't follow them while blocked. Please go six months without editing here before posting another unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:33, 16 May 2022 (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 see you've already been unblocked once, and ended up needing to be re-blocked. What specifically has changed / what do you plan to change that would make this time different? SQLQuery Me! 00:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you edited under any other accounts, or while logged out while you've been blocked? SQLQuery Me! 00:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SQL: To answer your questions:
  • 1. If I do get unblocked, I will make sure to add edit summaries (even if the edit is small or big), source my edits, check my talk page more often, and accept commentary from other users about my edits so I can improve them for the future and avoid getting blocked again.
  • 2. I have not edited Wikipedia on another account or logged out since I been reblocked because if I were to do that, that would impact my chances of getting unblocked. Angelgreat (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SQL: Hello? Angelgreat (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be editing under the IP 2600:387:F:4117:0:0:0:8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as recently as January 2. Blue Riband► 20:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Riband: Sorry for the late response, I was busy with college. That IP is not me, because I know that editing log off constitutes as a ban-evasion. I am not repeating what I did in the past. Also, anyone could have edited in that IP address along with any other IP address. Besides, I know what not to from last time I was blocked because attacking admins, especially logged off can create more enemies and affect any chances of getting unblocked. 2022 is a new year, and a chance for everyone and the world to improve. Angelgreat (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How did you ignore all the warnings you were provided after your last unblock? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: Much of the warnings were related to attribution and edit summaries. They said that I forgot to do those when adding and removing text to articles. I forgotten about that because some time has passed between getting blocked originally and getting unblocked. If I do get unblocked again, I'll make sure to add references and add any edit summaries, whether it's big or small.Angelgreat (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

  • Leaning unblock, but I don't want to go too far out on a limb. @Angelgreat:, you can set your preferences to require an edit summary when you save an edit, "publish changes." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say, it still strongly seems that you're evading your block. Latest was a couple of IPs from Milwaukee, US, that happened to edit in the same area as you, and also just happened to add images to articles that you'd just uploaded to Commons. E.g. this edit adding an image you added to Commons just 2 days prior. It's hard to imagine that someone from the same location as yourself, editing the same articles you have edited, and using images you'd just uploaded to Commons, is coincidentally not the same person as yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this edit where an IP from your location just so happened to edit revert to reinstate an edit you'd made for an original research colourised version of an image. I'm definitely calling WP:QUACK on these edits. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Canterbury Tail: Look, It's been 9 months since I been re-blocked and noone has responded to the appeal in like 3 months. I miss editing here, but it's annoying to keep waiting for a response. I'll admit that I can be impatient at times, especially since I have Autism, but I'm not attacking admins like last times. I do want to add contributing stuff here, but I don't want to mess up all the time or create new issues since I do have some conflicts with some of the admins here.

But yes, I admit to have recently blocked evaded because of how long it's been since I posted my block request. I don't know edited the Mauretania page image, but yes I do admit editing the Adriatic, Olympic, Britannic, Cunard-White Star Line, Crosley Field Atlanta–Fulton County Stadium, Ed Thorp Memorial Trophy, and the Ballpark pages while in the UWM computer lab. But in those cases, I only added images or information to the articles. I also added a source to the Ed Thorp page. But unlike last name, I'm not attacking any admins, but I do want to apologize for the recent events and I'll stop editing logged off whether it's at home or at college. I'll try to be a better person and I won't attack pr argue with any admins. I hope you accept my apology. Angelgreat (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Angelgreat - Do you realize that you are admitting to block evasion? Do you think that helps your case? Along with the promise "not to attack" Administrators? I'm afraid you don't entirely grasp the purpose of Wikipedia blocking an editor. Blocks are not about punishment, cooling off, or behavior modification. They are about protecting the encyclopedia. Any editor who adds unsourced material, biased points of view, and/or copyrighted material is doing more harm than good. The last is probably the worst from the point of time and labor involved in having to review every single edit to clean it up.
Back in 2019, Yalma asked you to answer these questions-
- What is copyright?
- How is Wikipedia licensed?
- Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
- Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
- How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?
I didn't see any answers to his questions. Blocked editors have been unblocked but only after demonstrating that they understand what they did wrong and that past problems won't continue. You've been on Wikipedia since 2013. I'm not seeing how your editing would improve. Blue Riband► 03:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Blue Riband: I'm admitting to it because I know the last time I block evaded while blocked (not including the European ones since they were from different people), I didn't acknowledge it and it affected my unblocking requests. Plus, I did answer Yamla's questions on previous unblock appeals, which you can see in my Archive 2. Also, when I created my Wikipedia account in 2013, I was around 10 years old. And when Yamla blocked me the first time, I was 14. I'm now 18 and will be 19 in May. I have grown and I'm in college. Yes I have Autism, but I'm not attacking admins or being disrespectful the first time I was blocked, because I'm grown and I don't want to create new enemies (ferret, the admin who blocked me recently, is friends with Yamla, the admin who originally blocked me). Plus I was blocked for 3.5 years, so some info had been rusty due to that time. I have recently edited my preferences to require a edit summary thanks to the tip of Deepfriedokra, and I do know copyright and how to source stuff. If I do get unblocked, I do intend to listen to admin and properly source stuff. Sure, some will still a grudge against me, but not everyone is perfect. I'll be taking a wikibreak after this, so I won't be back for a while to focus on college. Angelgreat (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm afraid there are still some things that you have not quite grasped. On 4 February you relied to me that you "...know that editing log off constitutes as a ban-evasion..." Yet yesterday, you admited to block evasion and excused it as OK because your unblock request was not answered. Which is it?
      Your unblock request was probably not answered because you are demonstrating that you are not adhearing to Wikipedia policy even as you beg to be unblocked.
      If you know copyright, then take a shot at answering Yalma's five questions. Surprise him.Blue Riband► 05:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Blue Riband: I'm back from my wikibreak, only to gladly answer the five questions.
  • What is copyright? Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects and grants a creator exclusive rights to a creation they made for the rest of their life plus 50 to 70 years, depending on the country.
  • How is Wikipedia licensed? Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License. Which means text, photos, and videos are free to be used on other sited outside of Wikipedia unless otherwise noted.
  • Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is subject to US copyright law and may not host material which infringes on the rights of the creator under US copyright law. Wikipedia is also a free content encyclopedia based in the US.
  • Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? We can use it if the author released it under a free license, if the author has granted permission to use it as long as we cite the original author, or if the author has been dead for over 50 to 70 years as the copyright would be expired.
  • How do I intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? I will make sure to double check my work, check my resources, and ask admins if there's any help. If it is in the public domain, it's safe to use. If it's still copyrighted, I'll ask for permission to use. If yes, I'll provide info. If no, I'll not use the copyrighted content.

I hope these satisfy the questions and please don't attack me over this. Note that It's been 10 months since I been re-blocked and I'm not trying to create issues like last time or even bring up past conflict. While some may not forgive me, at least we can move on. If I do get unblocked, I will make sure to add edit summaries (even if the edit is small or big), source my edits, set my preferences to require an edit summary when I submit an edit, check my talk page more often, and accept commentary from other users about my edits so I can improve them for the future and avoid getting blocked again. I hope I can get another change. For now, I'm going back on a wikibreak. Angelgreat (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses to Yalma's copyright questions are a good start. However you have "outed" yourself on block evasion as recently as April 4. Five ISP addresses came from the same university network system. No amount of pleading is likely to get you unblocked if you continue to evade the block by anonymous ISP editing. Your best chance to get unblocked is to review and follow the Standard offer. As suggested by others, it would help it you got some experience on another wiki. Blue Riband► 16:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:OverdoneStinkBomb

Template:OverdoneStinkBomb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean)

Information icon Hello, Angelgreat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Apple hardware between 1998 and 2020

Template:Apple hardware between 1998 and 2020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Apple hardware since 2020

Template:Apple hardware since 2020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean)

Hello, Angelgreat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ultimate Abyss".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ship lengthening

Information icon Hello, Angelgreat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ship lengthening, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ship lengthening

Hello, Angelgreat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ship lengthening".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"New Apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New Apple and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#New Apple until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Old Apple and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Old Apple until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editing

Hi, I am just wondering if you can help me add entries to disappeared lists. I am swamped with editing and can only do so much at a time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been blocked indefinitely, you’re unlikely to get a response. Canterbury Tail talk 18:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 8, 2022

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, It's been a year and if you're wondering how I got blocked, I forgot to attach some sources and add a summary to my edits and I got blocked for that, as it consituted disruptive edits. I have also not block evaded for 6 months now and have instead uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons and edited articles to Simple Wikipedia (mostly on Ukraine).

I'm trying not to make the same mistakes from the past. I know what copyright is and I know how not to attack users or start edit warring. Please unblock me and I'll make sure not to forget to add sources to my future edits. I don't want to be blocked forever, especially after almost 2.5 years of previously being blocked. I want to edit here again and add info that's cited and non-disruptive. I'm ready to accept the standard offer and any restrictions that come with it, especially during these times of conflicts because it's time for a change. Slava Ukraini! Angelgreat (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see you've made good use of the intervening time getting yourself blocked on Commons. I'm afraid that short of becoming a valued contributor at Simple English Wikipedia your chances of appealing this block are nil. signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 30 December 2022 (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.

Your draft article, Draft:Kidnapping of Paul Fronczak

Hello, Angelgreat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kidnapping of Paul Fronczak".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #67140

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 18, 2023

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, It's me again. It's been a while and if you're wondering how I got blocked, I forgot to attach some sources and add a summary to my edits and I got blocked for that, as it constituted disruptive edits. While being blocked here, I have uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons and edited articles to Simple Wikipedia (mostly on Ukraine). I'm trying not to make the same mistakes from the past. I know what copyright is and I know how not to attack users or start edit warring. Please unblock me and I'll make sure not to forget to add sources to my future edits. I don't want to be blocked forever, especially after almost 2.5 years of previously being blocked. I want to edit here again and add info that's cited and non-disruptive. If I do get unblocked, I will make sure to cite my sources. I'm ready to accept the standard offer and any restrictions that come with it, especially during these times of conflicts because it's time for a change. Slava Ukraini!

Decline reason:

Since user's talk page access has been revoked, there's no point in leaving this open. Procedural decline. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2023 (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.

Angelgreat (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not address your extensive block evasion. Can you comment on that? Canterbury Tail talk 01:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: I have talked about the 2018 block evasion and admin attacks in the past, you can go look for it in the Archives (Trump Era) for the page. As for the ones last year, I'll explain the backstory:
When I got blocked in October 2021, I was trying to be patient with the unblocking appeals. I didn't want to wait 3 more years to be unblocked like last time and I certainty wasn't planning to attack admins like last time. By March, when my January 9 appeal wasn't acted upon in 4 months, I got impatient with waiting and I used the UW-Milwaukee's computer lab and library (yes, I'm a student there) to edit on the site. I was hoping that, since there's many people in the university visiting and editing, that my edits would blend in. After YOU caught me in April 2022, I knew I had been discovered. I didn't want to deny it like last time, but I also didn't want you, Ferret, Yamla, or any other admins that I had conflicts with in the past here or on Commons to think that I was only editing to add my photos and other content to ship-related articles. So, I revealed the edits that I did do at UW-M, which also included Baseball and other sport-related edits. After I confessed and answered the answers Yamla asked in 2019, I was told that I would have to wait to get my talk page access and ability to appeal my block reinstated on October 4, 2022 as punishment.
After that, I followed the decline reason and your suggestion to "get some experience on another wiki", I decided to start uploading/editing image on Commons and add sources and Images to Simple Wikipedia. I have not block evaded since April 2022 and I have been active on Commons and partly on Simple English. I do not intend to block evade again or reignite any new drama here, I want to show that I have changed again and that I want to be a good valued contributor on here. If I do get the standard offer, I'll accept the terms and conditions of it and move onto other page topics like Baseball, the War in Ukraine or Doctor Who. I don't want to be blocked forever. Angelgreat (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this isn't something that the checkuser tool can definitively prove, I don't see any evidence of block evasion.
For anyone that's interested, link to GUC. SQLQuery Me! 20:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78543

is closed. I send greetings to all of Yamla's other minions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #90549

Closed. Continued use of the "minions" language on Commons: commons:User talk:Angelgreat#February 3, 2024 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angelgreat&oldid=1242833508"