User talk:Answermeplease11

Welcome!

Hi Answermeplease11! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Affenpinscher and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, Answermeplease11, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Alopekis, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know what makes me really angry?

The death of Isadora Duncan.

Even though I really dont what to share my thought at the end, I have many thoughts in my head. I came up with this because when I found out about how she died, I was really frustrated, like these two emojis combined 🤯 + 😡.

You know how old she died at? Here’s a hint.

What is 2.5 x 20?

Yes, she died that old, which isn’t very old. Maybe if she wanted to live longer, she shouldn’t have worn her silk scarf so much. (Even though she looks nice with it) Even though it isn’t Wikipedia’s fault, still, I am extremely frustrated.

You know what should happen to her in the future? She should be cloned, or be reincarnated by god.

Answermeplease11 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of rambling on topics well beyond Wikipedia's concern is not really appropriate to userpages. Please bear this in mind for the future. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add on to Nick Moyes's comment here, a lot of your edits are making it look like you're not here to build an encyclopedia. A majority of your edits have been on various reference desks; only eight out of your 173 have been in to articles. I'd really encourage you to read about what Wikipedia is not. – Frood (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frood, the only reason I dont edit wikipedia articles is because I’m worried i am going to vandalize them. Also, will I get blocked if i keep on using the reference desk. Also, let me know how to help with editing Wikipedia pages. Answermeplease11 (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Answermeplease11[reply]

@Answerme: If you're editing in Good Faith, no-one is going to accuse you of vandalism. If you get reverted, you can always seek an explanation if you don't understand it, and learn from any mistakes. Like Frood, I also noticed your huge number of posts to the Reference Desk, which did look like it was simply wasting everyone's time. If you want to engage with people socially, simply go to some other social media site and post questions there. Just donm't do it here any more, please. If you want to help build an encyclopaedia of notable things on Wikipedia, you don't have to create new articles- there are already plenty (6.2 million, actually) that you could help improve. You were already given a link in the welcome message above to our Wikipedia:Task_Center, which might direct you towards things you could do. Give one of those ideas a try. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isadora died almost a century ago. Even if she had lived to a ripe old age, she would have been gone by sometime in the 1950s-60s-70s time frame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bad History (April 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic 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 music-related topics). 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bad History and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bad History, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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) 22:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Answermeplease11! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bad History (April 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Pahunkat were:

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Pointless to resubmit without improvement

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bad History and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bad History, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Pahunkat (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.– Frood (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social media website, nor is it a forum for random discussions. The reference desk is an academic resource by and for the community of editors here to build an encyclopedia. It is not a Quora or a Yahoo Answers. If you are only here to hang out at the reference desk, asking asinine questions, that may seem harmless, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and it uses up volunteer resources. If you would like to try to convince us that you're here to contribute to building an encyclopedia in line with our policies and guidelines, then by all means, you may request an unblock. Short of that, it seems that you are here for the wrong reasons. I recommend you find another social media website to ask your questions at. That is not what we're here for. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, the reasons I ask my questions to Wikipedia in the reference desk is because I didn’t totally know that it was for questions about building an encyclopedia. Maybe next time, I could ask them in my talk page, plus, i believe you that my questions are unnecessary. Well, a necessary question that I do have is about how I can improve stub articles, like ones for Dogs.

Answermeplease11 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, why haven’t you answered me yet?

Answermeplease11 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your talk page is not for asking random questions. You are blocked because you are not here to build an encyclopedia. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be unblocked for one more day, because I would like to know something about my dog, and after that, ill use forums.

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).

Answermeplease11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just want to ask a question about my dog and guinea pig until my question gets answered, and then, ban me. Answermeplease11 (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Answermeplease11

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) 15:55, 20 April 2021 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pets.stackexchange.com at least won't block you for the same reasons! —Tamfang (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]