Jump to content

User talk:Wandavisionvixen101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Wandavisionvixen101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Laci Mosley did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Aranya (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source.I feel like people in the wiki are jealous of me because I work hard and do more research than they do. Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wandavisionvixen101, I can assure you that nobody thinks like that. In fact, I really appreciate that you took time to do the research! The main thing is that Wikipedia has a really strict policy for how we talk about any living person. If you're familiar with the biographies of living persons policy - we basically only include their personal information once we can back it up with solid sourcing from reputable publications, even if you know it's correct.
For purposes like sourcing Laci Mosley's birthdate, most Wikipedia editors agree that IMDb is not an appropriate source. One of the main reasons is because it contains user-generated content, which means that I can easily make an IMDb account and add to some film entries, for example. You can read more about it at WP:IMDB and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Happy editing, Aranya (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to As the Bell Rings (American TV series) have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at As the Bell Rings (American TV series), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended for block evasion

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

[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).

Wandavisionvixen101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I was being harassed by two individuals for helping out and making the Wikipedia site a better place when it comes to putting out actual facts about certain things or people. And I don’t appreciate the user Ponyo for permanently blocking me on the Wikipedia for something I didn’t do. Two weeks would’ve been fine but permanently? That’s not fair. I’ve contributed so much for the site by creating new and amazing pages. I never gotten in huge trouble before. And for Ponyo to harass me like that hurt my feelings. I hope I can get my account back and get Ponyo not be disrespectful not only to me, but your site. Thank you for taking the time to read this appeal.

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request. I certainly see logged out editing including using unreliable sources, in violation of WP:BLP. This does not appear to be a case of someone bullying you, this appears to be a case where you aren't following our policies. Yamla (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2023 (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.

One open unblock request at a time, not two. One. And saying you'll keep on making requests if they are declined, that's a sure way to demonstrate you should lose access to your talk page. I strongly advise taking a different approach. Stop, read and thoroughly understand WP:GAB, then make an unblock request that talks about your actions, not those of others, that shows you understand what was wrong with your actions. You are free to ignore this advice, but expect to quickly lose access to your talk page if you continue your current approach. --Yamla (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I can get my account back if I follow your advice on how to do it in professionally manner? :) Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can make no guarantees. I won't be the one reviewing your unblock request. In general, though, if you convincingly demonstrate why you understand your edits were inappropriate, if you convince the reviewing administrator that you understand your edits are the problem and show how your future edits would be different, if you address your logged-out editing, there's a significant likelihood you'd be unblocked. Note this isn't just saying "I was wrong", you need to convincingly demonstrate you truly understand what was wrong. --Yamla (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are trying to say. I’m sorry for acting childish. I was helping out with the page with relevant sources and I guess my pride got in the way. So there’s a 50/50 chance you say? I’m going to read the steps right now. :) Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your block is indefinite, not infinite. If the reviewing administator and the blocking administrator are convinced you would edit significantly differently if unblocked, if they believe you truly understand what you've been doing wrong, they'll happily unblock you. --Yamla (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So try delete my old appeal and make a new one or edit it out? Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you delete it, thoroughly read and understand WP:GAB, WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:LOUTSOCK, and only once you thoroughly understand those, make a new request. You should definitely not aim to make a new request today, you need to take more time. Note that I'm signing off for the day now. I wish you a sincere good luck in your future unblock request! --Yamla (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank so much for your help. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season. Wandavisionvixen101 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wandavisionvixen101&oldid=1192802575"