User talk:Treedrop

Welcome!

Hello, Treedrop, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sdrqaz (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueCrabRedCrab, Thanks! Treedrop (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treedrop, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Treedrop! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

warning

Why did you vandalise if dont know the topic?! open indian league system and i league pages, this will be reported

April 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gatling gun. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. — UwU wug's this? 22:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Redtree21 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzoon

Your recent reversion on the Tarzoon article was restoring vandalism. Please think instead of reverting in robot mode. 73.81.124.122 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting multiple successive edits

Hi, please have a look at Help:Reverting. There is no need for multiple undos. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, Srry I do the quicker option. Treedrop (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treedrop, you're currently re-introducing additional problems with edits such as Special:Diff/1016306470, to live articles, instead of using the method that simply removes the entire problem. Other users could help by properly reverting the vandalism, but the usual tools fail if an experienced user made the last edit to the page, and you're practically approving the vandalism for a moment in which noone can revert it easily. Please reconsider this approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, Ill try to do it sometimes if there is a lot of edits by one vandal. If it is just 2 edits by the vandal ill just revert both. Treedrop (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts

Have you edited Wikipedia using a different account before? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC) ToBeFree, no. Treedrop (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a violation of the biographies of living persons policy

Treedrop, the aforementioned focus on "quick" editing seems to have resulted in Special:Diff/1016307678, which has restored unsourced, challenged content in a biography. Per the verifiability policy, section WP:BURDEN, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you have a source for the content, feel free to restore the content with a proper citation (see the tutorial at WP:INTREF if necessary).

The following standardized advice applies to such articles:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

If you do not exercise the necessary care when editing such articles, you may be topic banned from biographies of living people, in severe cases without further warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, Ok, I will try to not multi-revert on BLP articles. Treedrop (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a multi-revert problem, but thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Treedrop, sorry for the revert and warning, you was the wrong one, should be the IP . Regards --Serols (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serols, I double reverted it so one was not good and the other was fine. Treedrop (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That revert was actually fine, and it wasn't a double revert either. No worries about the edit at Factory. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree thank you for paying attention. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. At the current rate of reverts from Treedrop, it's hard to maintain an overview. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling?

Was that an attempt at trolling or something?

Kikiopae (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiopae, you are the one trolling. Treedrop (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treedrop Lol okay, so how am I trolling? Please enlighten me on how removing contradicting information is trolling, numbnuts. Did you actual read the article or are you following your wikipedia friends? Kikiopae (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiopae, You are a vandal but okay... Treedrop (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treedrop What am I doing to vandalize, big man? How is cleaning up an article of contradicting info vandalizing? Can you tell me if you've read the article before? I'm not being intimidating or harassing you. Kikiopae (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiopae, I have read that article before. Treedrop (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have, why do you think it looks normal to have two different sources on the gorilla's size? Do you know why I reverted it? Kikiopae (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiopae, Just in case one was fake. Treedrop (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol it is not something seen on other articles for animals. One is much more recent, more visibly realistic, and has the bonus of actually being readable for people. Kikiopae (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiopae OHHHH OK SORRY.... Treedrop (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schlenki69

The "69" could well be a birth year; we usually wait until the user makes their first edits in such cases. A bot automatically reports such usernames at WP:UAA already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, oh. 69 and 420 are linked with vandals. Treedrop (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 420 is less likely to be a birth year and more likely to refer to cannabis culture. Still, even "420" can be a genuine reference to 42 (answer) with a zero appended for whichever reasons (nickname with "42" already taken, ...), or whatever else could be associated with the number (AD 420, 420 BC, ...). That's why we often silently wait and see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, OH ok. Treedrop (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRUH I AM NOT ALIBINO WTH Treedrop (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToBeFree, User:Serols, User:Oshwah, this is your courtesy ping--confirmed to a number of socks including User:9wo, User:2v5, User:Dualcerb, User:Alibino. And User:LAlibinoisback. I suppose this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlMichaels1727/Archive. Treedrop, your edits were not productive, so don't think you got blocked just for socking. And don't "bruh" me. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Drmies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Middle School is a death sentence. Treedrop (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have my sympathy. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(off-topic) I stumbled upon this user talk page and I was reading this, and I was getting the "sockpuppet vibe" and then I saw the bad UAA report and remembered that Alibino had the exact same writing style and I was ready to file an SPI when I saw this 🤣

@Treedrop:Anyways, I understand that middle school is insanely boring (saying this as a current middle schooler), and it might seem like this is a good use of your time in school if you aren't learning anything, but in the end, reverting vandalism is basically just a video game - mindlessly clicking buttons. Noah ^💬 15:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]