Jump to content

User talk:Aaron34weston: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 258: Line 258:


Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)}}
Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)}}
I will stop disruptive editing. I understand what I've done and on't do it again.
I will stop disruptive editing. I understand what I've done and won't do it again.

Revision as of 22:28, 12 March 2020

Welcome

Hello, Aaron34weston, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sun Tropics (January 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Aaron34weston! Having an article 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! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frank Einstein (book series) (January 26)

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 submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:
See Wikipedia:Notability (books) - Requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show notability
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 when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Nowak (author) (January 26)

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 submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:
Requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show notability
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 when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sodiaal (January 26)

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 submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:
Requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show notability
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 when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Benjamin Tardivel has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Benjamin Tardivel. Thanks! KylieTastic (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Polyipnus matsubarai has been accepted

Polyipnus matsubarai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

97198 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for reverting

Hi, just to let you know that the use of "fishes" at Actinopterygii is not a typo, as "fish" as a plural only refers to a population of one specific variety, whereas "fishes" as a plural refers to a population of multiple varieties and or species. Have a nice evening in the meantime, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Herluf Stenholt Clausen

Notice

The article Herluf Stenholt Clausen has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. buidhe 17:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Tardivel has been accepted

Benjamin Tardivel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KylieTastic (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Antony S. Harold

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Antony S. Harold requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Thurm64talkmy edits 17:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antony S. Harold moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Antony S. Harold, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Antony S. Harold (January 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Atlantic306 was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. 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 when they have been resolved.
Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Antony S. Harold has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Antony S. Harold. Thanks! Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parapetrobius azoricus has been accepted

Parapetrobius azoricus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Entremont

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to Entremont added the name of an apparently non-notable entity. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Williams Tyrrell (February 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 Sulfurboy was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 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).

Aaron34weston (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I haven't done any bad stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron34weston (talk • contribs) 20:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: This was a request to remove an autoblock, but a checkuser has confirmed the validity of the autoblock and converted it to an indefinite block. This unblock appeal serves no purpose anymore; any future appeal needs to directly address the concerns mentioned below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 24 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.

You're not deliberately blocked. What exactly does the block message say? MER-C 20:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just says I don't have permission to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron34weston (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us more information. This account is not blocked, nor is the IP that you used to make this request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All it says is that Ondhigarman is blocked and I don't have permission to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron34weston (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling there is a {{Checkuser needed}} here, regarding Ondhigarman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron34weston (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Technically indistinguishable to Ondhigarman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also on the same range, although a separate device, is Okmsa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Aaron has been on the same IP range since his account was created in January. I'd call all three accounts  Confirmed, and will be blocking Aaron's account directly. ST47 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ST47: - I've not rejected the above appeal since it seemed logical for you to handle the first one, and note it as a CU-block. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll just go ahead and decline the request – the block reason could still use a {{checkuserblock}}.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

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).

Aaron34weston (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 2 March 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 will stop disruptive editing. I understand what I've done and won't do it again.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron34weston&oldid=945273624"