User talk:Lincolnlover2005

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lincolnlover2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Goldin Finance 117. 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 complete 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Goldin Finance 117 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tokyo Tower of Babel (June 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith 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:

My first thought was that this was a hoax, but I see it's a real thing. Or at least something that's actually been proposed. But, in any case, we need reliable 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tokyo Tower of Babel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tokyo Tower of Babel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lincolnlover2005! 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! -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Building[edit]

If you want to change this infobox image you'll need seek consensus first. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change the image, it’s all blurry and not in good quality Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P L E A S E Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Woolworth Building, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Salesforce Tower. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, stop[edit]

You just don't show up two days ago and start changing things to your liking. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just want to fix some inaccurate information Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ping An Finance Centre. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. N.J.A. | talk 16:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Hello there I had no malicious intentions of vandalizing any page whatsoever and I recently just learned that account was blocked because it was apparently sock puppeted by me I do not even know that person. The reason I begin editing Wikipedia articles was because I just wanted to update some facts and Statistics that needed to be updated due to recent events about skyscrapers I did not mean to offend anybody or make anyone mad and I apologize. Whatever I did wrong I will not do again as it has made a few people upset and I apologize I had no intentions of doing that Action. I would please like to have my ban lifted thank you and have a nice day Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that's what you said on your other account, who also just showed up and started editing Skyscrapers, qawinkydink? nada. Good luck with your unblocking. You should find somewhere else to play. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen here Flightime[edit]

Hey, I apologized, I didn’t mean to do anything wrong, I’m sorry, and if you have a problem with me, just don’t talk to me OK you don’t have to be mad I don’t have to be mad and I won’t do the thing I did wrong again just undo the block and stop antagonizing me

Bullying me for tinkering with your little Wikipedia article fixing a few inaccurate height statistics is an unnecessary action. I don’t want to be mean but when people accuse me of doing something that I did not do wrong and instead trying to help, I defend myself.

Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnlover, Brady, whoever you are... look I welcomed you to Wikipedia because you showed promise. Sockpuppetry and the like is just flying in the face of that initial assessment. All that's left is for you to take the Standard offer and stop with this nonsense. It is highly unlikely that you did not violate our policies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I apologize for my behavior, and I appreciate that you think I had potential. This will not happen again and it was just a misunderstanding. Have a nice day Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits[edit]

Listen, I edited these articles for a reason, buildings like China Zun are already completed and reverting the articles are A: mean, B: giving inaccurate information, and C: supposedly, you don’t want to update an article that made me join in the first place Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But... China Zun isn't open yet? You need to provide a reliable source for those kinds of edits. My apologies for the inconvenience. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China Zun[edit]

According to https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/citic-tower/11116

China Zun is listed as completed Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

OK, can somebody undo my block! I’m tired of not being able to contribute to this amazing page and repulsed that some facts and information is still wrong despite the fact that I fixed it, only to have it reverted back to its inaccurate form (I’m looking at you Flightime) please just undo my ban. For Pete’s sake Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at me all you want, you might also want to "look at" this WP:GAB - FlightTime (open channel) 23:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry Flightime, you seem like a nice guy, and I’m sorry we got off to the wrong start. Thank you for the link to the unblock page. Guess I need new glasses! I hope you have an absolutely amazing day. Best of apologies/ Wishes, Lincolnlover2005 Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Lincolnlover2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel like I should be unblocked because I realized the mistakes I made. I waltzed in here, edited stuff without permission which seemed like malicious intent, I did in fact create a secondary account using my brothers Google account, and provided information that was possibly true, but did not have sources. I hope that someone sees this and knows that I have learned my lesson, apologized, and hope to learn off of this mistake and be a better editor. Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are only admitting it now that you've been caught. You outright lied about the sockpuppetry, here and here. Oh, and here and here. Here, you claim it's misunderstanding; it's not, you were lying about the sockpuppetry. I'm sorry, but you've shown we simply can't trust your word. Your best bet is to wait six months with zero editing, then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to make a convincing argument that despite many instances of lying, we can now (in six months time) trust you. Hint: You'll need to demonstrate you have matured significantly and you'll need to convince us you learned your lesson not just because you were caught. Yamla (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2019 (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.

Block decline[edit]

I apologize if my unblock request wasn’t exactly the holy grail, I’m only 14. I mean, look at Goldin Finance 117, I basically rebuilt the article from the ground up, updating and adding facts and height statistics that made the page more interesting and informative. I only admitted these malfeasances now because I honestly did not know how to exactly unblock my account. Heck, someone else updated it to the correct format. I walked myself into a corner, so the only way to walk out is to admit my sins. Another thing is that in my apology, never at any moment did I say the word, “misunderstanding” So I apologize if my unban request wasn’t exactly “War and Peace” but it was the best I could do. Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you say, "it was just a misunderstanding." Care to walk back your claim you "never at any moment" said "misunderstanding"? Look, I understand sometimes you do bad stuff, then you lie to cover it up, then you are stuck and feel like you have to keep lying, over and over again. It happens, it's part of growing up. But given that you've demonstrated we can't trust you, WP:SO is your best option. Six months will give you an opportunity to mature and have a chance of earning back the trust of the community. --Yamla (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I know six months at that age might seem like a big deal, but I would just wait this out. I know this will seem unfair to you, but when faced with the accusation of Sockpuppetry you doubled down and lied instead of say right then and there "yeah that's me. I don't know how to get this account unblocked." Instead, you said "no that's not me. That's someone else."
If you didn't think it was wrong, then you didn't need to lie about it. Wait out the six months, tell the truth, and show how you've grown. That is pretty much the only way you'll get unblocked at this point.
Cheers, (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mah ban[edit]

2 more months to go! Lincolnlover2005 (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Unban[edit]

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).

Lincolnlover2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have waited the 6 months and I believe I am finally able to receive my ability to edit again.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 19:38, 4 May 2020 (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.

Remember, I said, "At that point, you'll need to make a convincing argument that despite many instances of lying, we can now (in six months time) trust you. Hint: You'll need to demonstrate you have matured significantly and you'll need to convince us you learned your lesson not just because you were caught." You haven't done any of those things. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, and apropos that this is being further entertained below: Lincolnlover2005 purported "I have waited the 6 months and I believe I am finally able to receive my ability to edit again I understand that I have learned my lesson." Contrary to that purport, merely two days earlier, Lincolnlover2005 requested unblock on the Commons claiming "One of my so called 'Sock Puppets' was simply a previously made account that I forgot even existed until I accidentally logged into it. All the photos I took were from my Flickr Account and NOWHERE ELSE unless I took it and chose WILLINGLY to upload." This was, of course, a blatant lie regarding both socking (for CUs, evidence is here; even non-CUs can see the Brady Cloud 2005 account claimed "as honestly as possible [...] that I have no affiliation with Lincolnlover2005," yet Lincolnlover2005 claimed "All The photos I upload are from my Flickr Account: https://flickr.com/photos/183318886@N04/" (underline added), a Flickr account whose username is "bradycloud2005" (!!!)) and regarding copyrights. Only when these lies were pointed out did Lincolnlover2005 acknowledge certain of the same. This seems the clearest possible demonstration that Lincolnlover2005 has, in fact, learned absolutely nothing and is merely continuing the pattern of lying, with admission and disingenuous "contrition" only when caught, identical to the behaviour referenced previously by @Yamla:. While WP:SO references 6 months on en.wiki, the user (and thereby integrity and competence) at the keyboard does not change with the project space. Эlcobbola _talk 13:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: Lincoln isn't a troll. They're just a kid who might actually come back later. I want to make sure it is fully understood that they have been given every chance to amend their ways, and the loss of editing privileges completely falls upon their own actions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've not called them a troll, and that you think I have suggests you've not actually read that essay. As neither an admin nor a CU, you cannot see "Lincoln's" behaviour, either in substance or scope, and thus cannot offer an informed opinion. That you offer comment anyway is your prerogative, but telling. Эlcobbola _talk 17:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are referring to the actions Lincoln took on Commons (which I am already aware of), there's nothing you can see that I am unable.
Secondly, WP:DENY is an essay describing how to interact with trolls and vandals. Lincoln is not either of those things (which presumes a malice for intent). It's right there on the top: "This page in a nutshell: Recognition is a motivation for vandalism. Trolls require food − don't feed the trolls."
Finally, if you scroll up on this very talk page, you'll see that I have been following this case for almost a year now. You got involved only six months ago. As the person who welcomed this user to English Wikipedia, I consider it my duty to steer them in the best direction I am able. That's who I am, and it's what I choose to do with my limited free time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Unban Part Two[edit]

I have waited the 6 months and I believe I am finally able to receive my ability to edit again I understand that I have learned my lesson and I have reread the terms and conditions making me realize what I had done. To elaborate, the reason I was banned was because I had been recklessly adding information, despite being true, was unnecessary. It was bad because I had not consulted with other editors before recklessly adding said information and pictures. Not just this, but I attempted to lie and cheat out of the situation I put myself in by creating another account. I realize that I should not have done this and I have an awareness for what I've done is wrong. I hope that this realization can result in my account becoming unbanned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnlover2005 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? What exactly did you do, and why was it bad? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TALK#REPLIED, it's generally considered impolite to edit your comment after someone else has responded to it. That's not everything you did, Lincoln. Look, I'm still trying to help you despite everything going on IRL for me, but you are going to have to show a deep level of self-awareness for an admin to move forward with the appeal process for you. Otherwise, you're just the kid who wouldn't listen when told to stop, then tried to lie and cheat themselves out of it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]