User talk:SoloWonder

Welcome![edit]

Hi SoloWonder! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TEAHOUSE[edit]

I noticed your questions and comments at some article talkpages on my watchlist. While it is nice that you are trying to understand how wikipedia works, these talkpages are not the right venue for such general queries. Can you please visit WP:TEAHOUSE instead (and even there, try to limit your speed of posting, listen to and read what the respondents post and link to, and be considerate of the time these volunteers are devoting)? Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Adam's Bridge. bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit alone was tendentious. Especially as it came after my request to " Please read the link and explain where you came up with the idea that the earliest name should be used. If you don't come back with a reasonable explanation or if your next post is as disruptive, I'll ask for you to be blocked.", a request you ignored at the same time as calling for good faith. As I said there, good faith would be a reasoned responde to my question. If you aren't interested in our policies and guidelines, you don't belong here. That should be obvious. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 6 May 2020 (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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to comply[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).

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

Request reason:

I was advised to come at this talk page. I did that. Above I was advised to go to "Get help at the Teahouse". I did that. Over "Help:Introduction to Wikipedia" [1] it was written "It's normal for new contributors to feel a little overwhelmed by all of our policies, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first; it's fine to use common sense as you edit, and if you accidentally mess something up, another editor can always fix or improve it later.". To respond as per your requirements even at this talk page I started to work on what's considered disruptive over the Teahouse. A block for trying to comply and trying to help? It was written " If you continue editing this talkpage, Talk:Adam's Bridge, disruptively, as you have been doing, before responding on your own page, you will be blocked.". There was nothing written about not being allowed to discuss what's disruptive at another page. Where did I not comply? I feel like busting into laughter. But I am controlling. It is bad to laugh at people especially when I know humans come out of ignorance in stages. It is okay if you are finding me disruptive even though as per my commonsense I have not been disruptive. As far as I know I am trying to help, I am not going to feel guilty. Lots of love to you all. Have a good day. SoloWonder (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've already wasted enough of other people's time. Unless your next unblock request convinces us that your actually here to build an encyclopedia, your talk page access will be revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:44, 8 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.

I am here to show where I can exploit wikipedia[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).

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

Request reason:

Showing where I can exploit wikipedia is a contribution towards fortifying wikipedia. Any project with good motives will welcome it. I see no good reason for wikipedia to refuse it. I have also comply to the directions given by editors. One more place where I may be able to exploit I am showing. If I am your admin, I can write "You've already wasted enough of other people's time..." as written above and continue blocking without giving sufficient elaboration to you if that is a standard practice at wikipedia as of now. Showing where I can exploit is a contribution. It is common sense. SoloWonder (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request is incoherent. Therefore, as warned, I have revoked your talk page access. Yamla (talk) 10:09, 8 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.

Lots of roses & love to you all. Get well soon.[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.