User talk:Spritz331

Hello I understand and I will not post polical items anymore.

Speedy deletion of Template:Old Clocks and their Makers[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Old Clocks and their Makers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clock[edit]

When I clicked on the link to the ref, the ref showed the book was called "Musical Clock" not "Pipe Organ". Please dont change the link title to somehting differnt from what the ref says. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see WP:OWN LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my original article from 2011 do not edit it thank you I will remove and report you now. Make your own article Spritz331 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article in 2011 Spritz331 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners was being helpful and was correct by advising you not to introduce factual inaccuracies to wikipedia content, your response is uncivil, please read WP:CIVIL: Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Regardless of who "made" the article, no one owns content on wikipedia, it is a collaborative project. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under California privacy law I own my data. Spritz331 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notice found right above the "publish changes" button when you edit: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." If you are unwilling to agree to the Terms of Use, you should not edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organ clock[edit]

I already merged the content you created into a new section in Musical clock. Please edit that section and do not restore the page as it doesn't satisfy wikipedia notability requirements for a standalone page. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issues were related to the original specific article from 2011 that I created to bring light to the lost pipe organ clock, no photos nothing was online that royal clock was only in the 1950s after the edits of the article all pipe organ reference was removed, but as I can see you readded the information into it. That my my goal as now there is Google photos now people know about it and it has a article. Thanks for adding it. This document was my creation from 2011 and lasted as pipe organ clock till this month. Specifically pipe organ clock. But they also found his example that photo is the same as the one from my book. It's beautiful can you imagine making that. wow. After I found all reference and information to the name and working or pipe organ was removed I tried to make the original again. But I can now see it is included again. Thanks I will no longer blank my page. Spritz331 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it is so hard to find one item no where on Google or wiki that is of historic value. That was my one item I brought to light in 2011 you couldnt even find a photo of it. Meaning the internet had no idea of it. The goal was to bring light to it. I feel we all have. And the original royal clock is here in this article now, not black and white but color photo. Spritz331 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Trump-a-day, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CatcherStorm ^talk 20:12, 17 February 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked me for a pipe organ clock, and a page about a slang term that was used for President Trump durring presidents day the term Trump-a-day for Presidents day during his years in office. Happy Trump-a-day. Spritz331 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spritz331 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for creating a page about a slang term we used at work( Trump-a-day ) we used in the fiancial sector. Durring presidents day. For who got the day off did you get Trump-a-day off. Someone said it's vandlism. I also made a pipe organ clock page and some one changed it to a musical clock page. But my page was changed. Can someone look into what is rude or vandlism here. Spritz331 (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NEOLOGISM; we can only have articles about terms that are in widespread use as shown with coverage in independent reliable sources. And yes, others are permitted to edit content you place on Wikipedia, which is no longer yours once you click "publish changes"(see my comment above). I concur with the reason for the block given by Bbb23, and as such I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 07:21, 18 February 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.

that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, you I not do it again. With releation to the trump-a-day article. Spritz331 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spritz331 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so I can work on articles

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) 11:53, 27 February 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.

Can someone remove the block nothing was posted about self promotion, no vandlism, no hate speech, nothing was utalized that would be a reason to block me forever. Is there a time line for my block or timeout or is there a way to remove this. Is this polically motivated? Spritz331 (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC

You will not be unblocked until you convince us you understand why your edits were inappropriate. We've already pointed you to the problem with your edits. If you think there was nothing wrong with your edits, this is the end of the line. --Yamla (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]