User talk:Vajkimzeej

This is Vajkimzeej's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 14)

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

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Vajkimzeej/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vajkimzeej! Having an article draft 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Paperboy 2 for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Paperboy 2, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been removed three times. Take a hint. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok —-Vajkimzeej (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there is zero reason for you to manually clear the sandbox. It clearly states "Any user can edit this page and it is automatically cleared regularly (anything you write will not remain indefinitely)." soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:IOS 18. Hajoon0102 💬 06:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you before: you seem to be going for some WP:PGAME, with your weird rants on your talk page and continuing to manually reset the sandbox. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: IOS 19 (January 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gorden 2211 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

iOS 19 is currently too far away from release - it is WP:TOOSOON. The information that might exist is currently speculative and is not fit for an article.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:IOS 19 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Gorden 2211 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: IOS 18 (January 22)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia does not publish articles on rumors and speculation

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:IOS 18 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: IOS 18 (January 23)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

pointless resubmission with no improvement - Wp:TOOSOON

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:IOS 18 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

god is the creator of earth--Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes. i know Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i know that Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i just know that Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I. JUST. KNOW. THAT!!!!!!! Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I JUST KNOW ThAt! Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I jUsT kNoW tHaT! Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i JuSt KnOw ThAt! Vajkimzeej (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use n iPad

February 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Pac-Man, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't asterisk out swearwords, per WP:BOWDLERIZE. Belbury (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vajkimzeej! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Pac-Man several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Pac-Man, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hey there, I saw your user page and wanted to send you this page in case you haven't seen it already: Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors
It has some pretty useful advice all in all. Happy editing. Mlkj (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 03:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I was sleeping —Vajkimzeej (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) I Am Like: 😢—-Vajkimzeej (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was sleeping I promise to contribute 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) 13:06, 28 February 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I Am Trying To Help.

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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2024 (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.

Non-admin notice here, I'm not confident this request will be accepted either. You still seem to not really understand what your block was for, or how this process really works. Now, an admin will review your request and determine how things go, but my suggestion would be, if it is declined, don't put another unblock request until you have read the guide to appealing blocks page, and understand it. Then, too, I would also think it'd be a good idea to wait at least a few weeks. If you do not do this and just keep spamming the unblock post, you will end up losing the ability to edit your talk page, ~~making unblock requests impossible, at least as far as I know, there could be a way but I don't know of any other way.~~ -- ThatOneWolf (^Chat_Edits 17:13, 28 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

i am leaving forever…

Decline reason:

Clear WP:CIR issues. WP:UTRS is available for appeals. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 28 February 2024 (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.