User talk:Hot Riley

March 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was constructive why someone removed content Hot Riley (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chocolate milk. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. It wasn't constructive the second time either. Meters (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not constructive Hot Riley (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's unsourced, made-up garbage that has already been reverted twice before. Don't waste our time. Meters (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at City of London, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Vandalism

Sorry for my bad edits But
I reverted vandalism at Snowman Musican  I deserve a barnstar now Hot Riley (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for apologizing, and for reverting vandalism. However, barnstars are not a right, they're a gesture of appreciation. Just as with other forms of thanks, the more you ask for them, the less likely you are to get them.

However, if you stick to productive editing from now on (whether by reverting vandalism, or by adding proper sources to articles, or by correcting typos, etc.), I don't doubt you will get one sooner or later.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any Vandals on this wiki

Just Want to know

I revert them when I see them, so I can't point you to anything for you to revert right now, if that's what you mean. I could help you learn how to find them and revert them even without special tools, though, if you want. Or how to find articles that could use improvement, or other ways in which you can edit Wikipedia in a constructive way. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Try not to start a line with a blank space--it causes your text to appear in a greyed-out box, as above.

[reply]

I would love to know how Hot Riley (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. One way to find vandalism is by keeping an eye on the Special:RecentChanges. It shows the most recent edits across Wikipedia. You can either check random edits to see if they're vandalism, or you can look for signs that show such a thing may be the case. These signs alone are not definite proof there is something wrong, they just give a reason to be suspicious of the edit and double-check it

Edit Summary:

The WP:edit summary consists of swears, curses and profanities, threats, attacks at the article's subject or attacks towards a fellow Wikipedian. Stuff like "Y School sux", "F* off, User:A!", "lolololthissucks", etc.
The edit summary consists of a lot of nonsense. Repeating characters, keyboard smashes, etc. Stuff like "blaehdjwrhjwebrjhw", "ffwfefew", etc.
The edit summary contains an admission of vandalism/disruption. Examples: "lololol I blanked this page", "No info for you!", "ahhaha I deleted everything", "You can't stop me vandalizing"
Edit summary contains "yolo", "swag", "lol", "joke" or "prank" without any of these words seemingly having a connection with the subject of the article.

Size change:

The edit removed a lot of content, or added a lot of content, without edit summary explaining what was removed/added and why. (For added content, look at ridiculously-large amounts. Say, someone adding a six-digit kb number of content. This usually is a lot of copied-and-pasted garbage. For removed content, anything that is large enough to show up as red-bold may warrant a look, depending on the article's subject and original size). Be careful with this one, since there can be a LOT of good reasons for content removal or addition

There's a lot more to look at, but I'll type that out in a bit. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject: Some subjects are more likely to attract vandals than others. An edit to one of these articles isn't necessarily vandalism, but is more likely worth checking even if not otherwise setting off warning signals than other subject matters

Article is about humor (e.g. practical joke, joke), memes and slang or vandalism-related terminology (e.g. vandalism, yolo, swag)
Article is about sex, sexuality and/or related subject matters, bodily waste and related subject matters, or certain parts of the anatomy.
Article is about a school.
Article is about a sport team, sport(wo)man, musician, actor, band, etc., especially when currently relevant.
Article is the subject of current media attention, especially if in regards to a scandal or similar, or is the subject of a recent meme, rumour, joke or hoax.
Article is otherwise controversial, or related to something controversial.

Editor involved:

Editor is likely new. (Red username+red user talk almost always signifies 'new'. Red username alone often does the same, although there are a handful of veteran editors keeping their userpage red on purpose. You learn to recognize these by name fairly soon, though) This alone does not mean an edit is vandalism. Combined with other warning flags, though, it can be worth keeping in mind
Editor is anonymous/IP. See previous. The great, great majority of vandalism comes from new(ish) or unregistered editors.
Username includes swears, statements of intent to disrupt, an attack on something or someone, or something that may be so. Twice as big a warning flag if the username issue is related to the article they're editing

There are more tips and tricks, of course--not nearly everything that flags as suspicious is vandalism, nor does everything that is vandalism trigger even just one of the above flags, nor is every problematic edit vandalism--but they do help in finding it. At least the obvious stuff. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Sydney Airport article

Its happening please come quick

I see you dealt with it quite well yourself. Good job! AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N9

It was Discontinued Right so I put the date in along with the word Was
because its just like a person dying

Vandalism on Robert

He replaced all of the article with a redirect
I do not know why he deserves barnstars

April 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Robert Pelloni. Please stop reverting a valid redirect or making demands on user talk pages. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of "vandalism"

Hi there.

It may be in your best interest to slow down a bit, and learn how Wikipedia works...

For instance, WP:VANDALISM is considered a bad-faith, nonconstructive edit. My edit was not "vandalism". I redirected the article because it was nowhere near meeting Wikipedia's standard for having a stand-alone article, especially for an article about a living person. You're free to disagree with my decision, but the claim of it being "vandalism" is fundamentally, objectively wrong. I made a good faith edit based on policy. There's a difference. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know but you Removed chucks of the article Hot Riley (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. That's a valid choice to make when an article doesn't meet the requirements for having its own article. It's nowhere close to meeting the standard, and was written entirely by the subject of the article himself. That's frowned upon too. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. In short, people aren't supposed to write article's about themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits on Robert Pelloni

(ping User:Sergecross73 and User:Ferret) I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "vandalism". Sergecross73 already gave his reason: "Article both fails the WP:GNG and is a WP:COI issue - was written entirely by the subject, as admitted on his user page." Maybe you should click those links and find out what they mean. He has already given a reason for his edit, yet you went ahead and reverted, without even asking him. I've seen some of your edits, where you have warned people for vandalism when he didn't even edit the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.207.102.17&diff=prev&oldid=712954488). Not everything is vandalism. Just because you don't agree with someone or his edits, doesn't mean it's vandalism. That is your own problem. Stop it. Go and read Wikipedia:GLAM/Beginner's guide to Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Tutorial. If you carry on trying to fight people who are editing with reason and not trying to establish understanding and agreement, you yourself risk being blocked from editing. Please read WP:Disruption carefully. Also read WP:Editing policy and WP:FIVEPILLARS. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost done Reading
Okay I am done

So quickly? I'm not convinced. If you continue making such edits, I won't be surprised if I find you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not warning you for anything, you have my friendly reminder. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am Going to be a good editor

I am going to revert vandalism

Recent edit to Serpin

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Dcirovic (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My account cannot edit

But its unblocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Riley (talk • contribs)

Yes, you were blocked for making stupid edits like this, but you should be unblocked now. You are still a pretty new editor, and sometimes pages are locked from editing from new editors, so perhaps this was your problem? Regardless, if you make any more stupid edits like the one I linked to above, you'll be blocked for much longer, so please, no more of that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAGBot: Your bot request Hot Riley Bot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hot Riley Bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]

Your bot request has been

Denied - you will need to demonstrate anti-vandalism efforts via supervised (manual) edits for quite some time before you would be able to operate a bot to do it for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/R.U Bot

Your request has been deleted; do not make any more bot requests - you will not be approved to operate any bots of any kind until you can demonstrate a consistent period of good faith editing from your user account. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hamper Bot. Continue to create BRFAs (bot requests for approvals) and you will be blocked. -- Cheers, Riley 00:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked for disrupting the project by continuing to file frivolous bot requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About my Bot request

Was it Trolling

Yes! Yes it was.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you Know?

Sorcery, it tells no lies. -- Cheers, Riley 00:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was it because I was not Explict on the Task

No, pure sorcery. Riley would know, he has dark sorcery powers. His powers of sorcery deduced you were trolling, or being too incompetent.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Sandy

Did Hurricane sandy make landfall in Manitoba Canada

Look, I don't know what you think Wikipedia is, but it's not the place for you to keep making these bizarre requests or pose random questions. Quite frankly, Xaoflux was extremely kind to only block you for a week, as I'm very close to giving you an indefinite block. I don't think you've made a single edit that was both constructive, and didn't lead to errors. (You still don't even sign your signatures, and for some bizarre reason, you start every new comment with a space, which makes your text look funny.) Stop screwing around. If you're serious about actually contributing to an encyclopedia, when you are unblocked, try doing the Wikipedia Adventure. It gives you basic help on editing. If you return to 1) vandalize articles 2) waste people's time with silly questions or bot requests when its clear you don't even understand how bots work, let along are able to propose the use of a new one or 3) do anything else to waste people's time, you're going to be blocked indefinitely. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Hot Riley! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:55, Monday, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Hot Riley! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:57, Monday, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Improvements in your editing skills

Hi Hot Riley. I am very impressed that your editing has improved after your recent playing with TWA and after the blocking. I am very happy that you have finally learnt what you need in order to make good edits. I hope you'll continue to do that and I hope that you'll continue to have fun editing constructively on Wikipedia. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton

I suspect you are British, and "favorite" looked incorrect to you. But that happens to be the standard spelling in the U.S., and there is a Wikipedia policy on this - WP:ENGVAR. It basically states that spellings should be consistent within an article, and generally articles associated with either specifically British or American subjects should use that particular national spelling. In the case of Hillary, obviously American spelling is preferred. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Fixed a typo

So what do you think of my work?

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Hillary Clinton, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pallister

His given name is "Brian" not "Brain" as you repeatedly state. [1] [2] [3] File:Brain_Pallister.jpg
He is not the premier of Manitoba until he is sworn in.
Since he is alive it is possible for someone to take a picture of him that can be released to Wikipedia. Therefore you cannot claim free use of the Crown copyrighted image File:Brain_Pallister.jpg. Meters (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Brain Pallister.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Brain Pallister.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- Cheers, Riley 20:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at List of communities in Manitoba by population, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- Cheers, Riley 20:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is unfair The census shows An increase

Decline reason:

If so, you should have cited it. It appears that the census has not actually been published yet, though. And even if it had, you haven't addressed the reason for the block. Yamla (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2016 (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.

Please note that the "2016 Census" you are citing is forthcoming and non-existent until May, 2016. See Canada 2016 Census. Your disruptive editing is not limited to those edits, and extends to reverting anti-vandalism edits, resulting in vandalism or inappropriate content being added back to articles. This is your third block this month, a much better unblock reason will be needed. -- Cheers, Riley 20:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this is your talk page, attempting to undo the decline of your unblock request is not acceptable. Please, take a break, and come back when ready to help. -- Cheers, Riley 21:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see that you have been blocked again, this time permanently. I'm not sure it's just that you are young or you are not great in your editing skills, but please understand that Wikipedia is not a toy, and it is not a playground. It is a serious place where adults and mature people try to write an online encyclopedia. You should not be experimenting here, if you do not know what you are doing. If you find yourself being blocked repeatedly and you don't understand why, I hope you understand it's not personal but my advise to is if you are here to have fun or to treat Wikipedia like an experiment or a game, you should be spending your time elsewhere instead of a serious place like this. That's all I have to say for now. Cheers, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 22:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]