User talk:Iliketumbleweeds

Welcome!

Hello, Iliketumbleweeds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gap9551 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of tallest people has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of tallest people was changed by Iliketumbleweeds (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.864022 on 2015-10-24T21:12:27+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wang feng jun

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.

A tag has been placed on Wang feng jun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Soos Ramirez.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Soos Ramirez.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting

Hi Iliketumbleweeds: I notice you've been trying to improve some new articles; thanks! However, you've got the wrong idea about how the ==References== heading works. It doesn't go before the first reference, it goes at the bottom of the article (above the categories), and it should have {{References}} under it; that creates the section where the footnotes appear. Also, adding categories is good, but remember to always have the word "Category" at the start of each one. And for people's names, there should be a "defaultsort" at the top of the categories, to tell the software to alphabetize by last name within the categories. That looks like this: {{DEFAULTSORT:Zink, Cameron}}. Bots go round fixing some of these issues, but they don't always get it right. I don't think your addition of infoboxes is such a good idea; when there is very little info in the article, they don't serve any summarizing purpose. And you are sometimes just putting in a blank one. But adding categories and the references section is useful, thanks! Yngvadottir (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most discussed YouTube videos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Best Song Ever. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with List of most discussed YouTube videos. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Postdlf can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User_talk:Drmies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Yoshiman6464. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not capable of understanding why you were blocked, you are not competent to edit here. You aren't behaving like someone who knows how to interact with other humans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ik why I am blocked but why am I indefinitely blocked really isn't fair when I usually obey rules your just taking it too far also you didn't check the history didn't you number 1 I stopped when they gave me a warning but you didn't check so again it isn't fair some I already stopped before 1439.

How come you haven't answered because you lost the argument or your just not on here

You didn't stop by choice. You only stopped insulting and attacking people when you were blocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did stop by choice because I knew it was pointless and retarded you guys warned and block me after I stopped by choice but yes I understand if I have to ht punished

I'm not going to try to have a rational conversation with someone who thinks "get cancer faggot retard die" is ever appropriate, nor someone who gets impatient because I'm not online 24/7 and complains after waiting a grand total of 5 minutes. Nor someone who could possibly think the sentences above consistitute an "arguement" that I could have "lost". If you were apologizing, I might consider it, maybe but certainly not when you think the problem is that a block is "not fair" because you stopped after 4 completely unacceptable comments. Please find some other website to contribute to. Or, I suppose, follow the directions in the block notice on how to request an unblock, and maybe some other admin will consider it. Although if you use the word "retarded" again I will remove talk page access too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you insulting me now I was just asking them you came up with a roast out of no where and I knew it wasn't appropriate I just got angry and I was in school. But how come I'm the one who is bad now I've been working for that article a long time and everyone just attacked it and said its dumb or it doesn't cite sources also I will consider reading the unblock. What I'm saying is this is he first time I've broken a rule but I get the same block as other people who have been breaking the rules for months. What I'm maybe I should blocked but for only 1 day - a few weeks

Listen, you were warned three times on your page, not just once and done. Secondly, you should comment on your block and not on other people. Thirdly, after you write something use four tildes to sign your name. Finally, if you want to appeal the block, read the notice above and comment on why you were blocked and what you will do differently if unblocked, and don't comment on other people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir so I finished the form

Can an admin pls unblock me

I love Wikipedia and I'm having a rough time at home. Sorry if I got peeved or sensed hate messages I really am I was just angry days of my work deleted and everyone hating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketumbleweeds (talk • contribs)

A comment or two:

If you want another admin to review, you're going to need to use the {{unblock}} template. I suspect the only admins who have your page watchlisted aren't inclined to unblock you right now. Using the template will notify uninvolved admins.
I understand occasionally losing your cool, I really do. If this had been a case of getting mad and saying "Fuck you for deleting my article", it would be different (still not acceptable, but different). The problem is, "Get cancer faggot retard die" is a strong indicator of a personality we don't really need here; you may need to do some growing up before returning here. You should probably address that in your unblock template, and make a convincing case that you will never, ever say anything remotely like that again, no matter how angry you get. I doubt just saying "oops, sorry" is going to be productive.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I will apologize if I get unblocked

Checkuser note: This user continues to create new accounts to evade this block (as well as a rather lengthy one on their IP address).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what I didn't make another account when did I create another account pls stop making stuff about me. Everything you said is a complete lie I didn't make another account I don't understand what your talking about is every admin attacking me now.

1. Yes I did use an IP address to edit something but I didn't use multiple accounts

2. I undo what I did on the page

3. Admins like you really just make my Wikipedia life worse I just want to add information and now I'm never gonna be unblocked

- Firstly, you need to sign your posts it makes it very hard to read. Secondly, you need to follow instructions. You never requested administrators to unblock. Why not read your block notice and it tells you how to request an unblock. If you continue to not follow instructions and just cast aspersions, there won't be any rope left to give you. I suggest you think hard before requesting an unblock and post what you will do differently and remember to comment on your own actions, not on other editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I*** I did request to unblock User:Iliketumbleweeds ^{<front color=green>user_talk:Iliketumbleweeds(talk 16:02 15 June 2016}

No, you didn't. And if you continue to not follow instructions, it will be clear that there really is no reason to unblock. I suggest you read your block notice again. I don't think I'm going to have the patience to respond further if you don't follow simple English instructions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer

I've revoked your talk page access; your continued replies here are both unhelpful and untruthful. As you have evaded your block via a (now also blocked) IP and created additional accounts the standard offer applies.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #15933 was submitted on Jun 15, 2016 20:02:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #15986 was submitted on Jun 17, 2016 01:25:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16029 was submitted on Jun 23, 2016 22:43:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About your email

I am not familiar with your case and must say that I am slightly puzzled as to why you have emailed me requesting unblocking under the standard offer conditions. I'm afraid that I will not be granting it for two reasons: 1) your user page indicates that you have inappropriately used at least one other account, as confirmed by the CheckUser tool; and 2) the standard offer is never made only days after a block has been issued – you will have to wait at least a few months. In any case, your unblocking will be subject to approval by one of the CheckUser team. Super Mario Man–Talk 00:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Book:Book about stuff and more

Book:Book about stuff and more, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Book about stuff and more and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Book:Book about stuff and more during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21514 was submitted on May 14, 2018 01:29:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]