Older comments available here (you may still comment there, but you may not start new discussions)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Redacted/sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Praxidicae: Isn’t testing the point of a sandbox page? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template sandboxes are for testing template code and doing template development. If you want to test using a template use a something like WP:SAND or a personal sandbox. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: I just realized that earlier today I accidentally block-evaded. I was reading some pages in the Wikipedia namespace, when I saw some minor formatting errors and grammatical errors, so I fixed them, but since I was just reading casually I didn't log-in. I only just realized it now, and I assure you that it was unintentional.

Since I do sometimes improve non-forum related pages in the Wikipedia namespace, maybe you could change the block to include the forum pages rather than the whole namespace? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Ilovemydoodle. Thank you for disclosing this accidental breach. To be clear, while you are partially blocked, you are prohibited by policy from editing while logged out in any namespace. Please see WP:SCRUTINY. It's also generally a bad idea to edit while logged out at all.

It is not technically possible to narrow your restriction in the way you describe, and even if it were, I don't see a reason to do so. The idea here is for you to focus on the encyclopedia's content. I was excited to see you off to a good start, with 10 content edits shortly after I p-blocked you, but there's only been one since. So I'm definitely not going to partly restore your access to a namespace that is meant to help further that content improvement process, not as an alternative to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: Thank you for the helpful reply, but, I haven't really been editing anywhere recently, so it might be a while before I make a significant amount of content edits. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case and El C: When I was originally blocked, most of my confusion was about why I in particular I was blocked. Now, as a more experienced editor, I understand, and if I did not understand, I could just the blocking admin. But, some new users may not understand what they did wrong and do not know about pinging. So, when blocking a user that is not just an obvious troll or vandal, you should probably give a more precise reason on their talk page and/or tell them about pinging. That’s just my opinion, though. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case and El C: Pinging again as I don’t think it went through the first time. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can see whether pings sent by enabling the appropriate setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Please do not re-ping people again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did get it ... I just haven't had the time to think about what I would say in response. Daniel Case (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, some times pings don’t go through. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, there is actually a policy for this, but it appears to be rarely followed. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yamla: I have noticed that you have blocked my IP. It appears that the block is different the one currently placed on my account for two reasons:

1. It’s longer: It’s longer by about a week and a half.
2. It's wider: The account block only covers two namespaces, while this one covers all - I know that you shouldn't edit any namespace while logged if you have an account (except in rare cases), but I don't see the need for a full block on my IP range. This could also result in unindented blocks.

– Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I placed a block on your IP address. Sign in to your account. You were evading your block, as you yourself acknowledged, and are very lucky that the block on your account wasn't extended significantly. --Yamla (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm JML1148. I noticed that you recently removed content from Abortion Rights Campaign without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. -JML1148 (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ilovemydoodle! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Agaram Foundation that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. PhantomTech[talk] 07:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PhantomTech: How on Earth did you do that so fast??? It literally happened as I published the edit. — Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle You should see how fast I am with vandalism. Also per MOS:LAYOUT stub tags go at the very end of an article, including after references. PhantomTech[talk] 07:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PhantomTech: That’s weird, on Wikiquote all stub tags go at the end of the lead. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: I think I have sorted out the issues that causes my block, I have noticed errors in pages in Wikipedia name-space that I would like to correct. Could I be unblocked? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I said I would consider lifting the block after 2 weeks if you could show some quality encyclopedic contributions. Now, I've been pleased to see you jump into projectspace yesterday. But... that was about 75 edits across about 16 hours, after a week of mostly just not editing. And you're using your talkpage to discuss abstract policy-related things, which makes me think you're really just making a few quick edits so you can go back to poorly-thought-through proposals. And it's only 10 days into your block. And in these 10 days you've evaded the block, intentionally or otherwise... and it was 3 consecutive edits spanning 5 and a half hours, which requires a great deal of AGF for me to believe was an accident. So if you want consideration of an early unblock, I would say that could only happen, at the soonest, two weeks after your last IP edit (so the 12th). But I would really encourage you to just focus on what I said in my initial block reason, and not on jumping back into an area that, even when this block expires, I will be expecting you to tread carefully in. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: Thank you for the helpful reply, but I can assure you that I am not justing editing to get back into proposals. The low amount of edits isn't from minimum effort, I am just not active on any wiki (see my global contribs and global contribs for Ilovemydoodle2). – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: I have been recently working on improving articles through the backlog. This includes adding ambox warnings and inline warnings.

I recently found this article and noticed a lot of problems with it. I have fixed some of them, but a lot issues remain, so I started adding warnings templates. The amount I added feels like way too much for such a short article, but most (I am saying most because I haven't checked all of them) of them do meet the criteria. Am I missing something? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Ilovemydoodle. Thanks for inquiring. As you can see, I've made a series of edits to the article, which I think should serve to answer some of your questions. A few more notes:

• ((multiple issues)) does exist for grouping a few tags together
• Remember that every tag you add is creating work for someone else. It doesn't take that much longer to change "docs" to "documents" than it does to add ((colloquialism))
• Be careful not to go overboard. Articles can be a little bit colloquial without needing banners or inline tags placed. The issue is when content drifts below the consultative register. Similarly, not every positive claim about a business is promotional. Our concern is when something sounds like an advertisement and not like an encyclopedia article (or when the claim fails verification).

Overall, it's really great to see you working on this, and I'm glad that you asked for feedback. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't originally sure if you would want to help with something like this, so I'm glad you not only helped-out, but also offer additional help. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: Okay, I have made some changes to the article. I fixed some of the issues regarding tone and colloquialism. I also re-added a few templates (that you removed) that I think are appropriate. Thanks for the help. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're still being a bit too strict when it comes to colloquialisms. For instance, "app" is the preferred term used in the article mobile app. Wikipedia does not have to always use the most formal term possible for something, and the term "software application" may well be less recognizable to our readers than app. Also, you linked every instance of "software application"; please see MOS:REPEATLINK.

As to the banner tags you added, what's the point of having "promotes the subject in a subjective manner", "reads like a press release", "written in a promotional tone", and "tone or style may not reflect"? Doesn't the third one cover all four? And what are the buzzwords referenced by the relevant tag? Something like "in-house incubator" isn't a buzzword.

When I ask a user to spend more time in mainspace, I make a point of it to not then critique their mainspace work, and leave that to others, because it seems unfair for me to play both sides. But since you did ask my opinion, I do want to hit these points home. Because if you go around dropping this many tags on articles, someone will get mad at you for it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin:

As to the banner tags you added, what's the point of having "promotes the subject in a subjective manner", "reads like a press release", "written in a promotional tone", and "tone or style may not reflect"? Doesn't the third one cover all four? And what are the buzzwords referenced by the relevant tag? Something like "in-house incubator" isn't a buzzword.

Okay, I shortened the header (five issues was excessive, I just couldn't figure out exactly which ones to removed). Also, I wasn't referring to "in-house incubator" as a buzzword, I was referring to "20% Project".

I think you're still being a bit too strict when it comes to colloquialisms. For instance, "app" is the preferred term used in the article mobile app. Wikipedia does not have to always use the most formal term possible for something, and the term "software application" may well be less recognizable to our readers than app.

“App” is still informal to me, though I am okay with it's use in the App article, because it makes sense in that context.

Also, you linked every instance of "software application"; please see MOS:REPEATLINK.

Done by accident, I used a regex to replace "app".

When I ask a user to spend more time in mainspace, I make a point of it to not then critique their mainspace work, and leave that to others, because it seems unfair for me to play both sides. But since you did ask my opinion, I do want to hit these points home. Because if you go around dropping this many tags on articles, someone will get mad at you for it.

I am fine with that here as I am new here and would like to improve.

– Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, what I got from this discussion is:

1. Avoid too many amboxes:
   1. Limit usage to at most 3 or 4 amboxes.
   2. Avoid duplication - if you have many similar amboxes, consider only having the one that best fits the issue or has the widest scope.
2. Avoid more than one inline warning, only use multiple inline warnings in situations where they are actually necessary:
   1. If the problems are truly distinct - the warnings are unrelated (and signifcant) and are an exception in the article.
   2. The problem only focuses on specific area(s) of text - if a problem is wide spread through out the the whole article or significant potations of it, it is usually best to just put an ambox on the section or article where problems are, not every instance of them.
3. Make sure that the tags you add are actually accurate - self-explanatory
4. Make sure that your tagging is constructive - constructive tagging is tagging that reduces the total amount of work that needs to be done (on all of Wikipedia) by helping others with the knowledge, ability, time, or interest to fix issues that you cannot. While non-constructive tagging, on the other hand, increases the total amount of work that needs to be done by offloading issues that you could easily fix onto others with better things to do.

Am I right? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a pretty good summary! The one thing I'd emphasize again—and I do see you've taken it to heart so far :) —is to avoid using banners or tags at all in situations where you could quickly fix something yourself. A big part of my philosophy of Wikipedia is, all actions either add to or subtract from the amount of work that need to be done. It's impossible to never add, but one should always try to minimize situations where one is adding, and maximize ones where one is subtracting. Adding ((advert inline)) to the end of a sentence adds. Rewording the sentence to not be promotional subracts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: You’re right! I (somewhat) realized this from your previous comments, but I like this way of thinking of about editing, and it will certainly improve my contributions! Also, I'll add it to my summary. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit:  Done Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, if you really think about it, it's the worst kind of laziness. Because, unlike regular laziness, it not only requires others to do more work, but also requires the original contributor to do more (pointless) work as well! – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding/subtracting work is a useful paradigm to understand in terms of why I blocked you from projectspace, too. Any post that proposes something creates work for others to do. On an article talkpage that might not be as much of an issue, because if no one responds one can invoke silent consensus. But in most projectspace contexts, it's expected that any post will be answered. So anytime you post something at a noticeboard, imagine you're starting the post with, "Hello, all of you busy people. Please focus on me for a moment", and consider whether the rest of the post seems appropriate when coupled with that imaginary first sentence. Sometimes it does! But other times maybe not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​Ilovemydoodle, I need to stress a very important point, which is that edit-warring over maintenance tags is still edit-warring. You re-added the ((tone)) tag after I removed it. Gilo1969 then removed it again, and you then restored it again, even though I'd given it as an example, above, of a redundant tag. You also reverted Gilo's removal of the REPEATLINKs to software application, even after you and I discussed that. Don't do this. Discuss on talk, same as you would for any other content dispute. Or, better yet, accept that on a procedural point like this, where you're still learning the basics, experienced editors are probably going to be right.

Also, I didn't say this last night, since you hadn't re-added the tag at the time, but "20% Project" is a proper noun, and thus cannot be a colloqualism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: Why did you block me from the Wikipedia_talk namespace? I understand the Wikipedia namespace-block, but I don't understand this one. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the WT namespace is used for essentially the same purposes as the WP namespace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: I never misused that one, and that one is used mainly as a talk page rather than a noticeboard. Also, this is currently preventing me from starting a section on a page. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The goal was to have you spend a month away from "back-room" parts of Wikipedia. I estimate that to include the WT namespace. If you disagree, you are welcome to appeal your block for review by an uninvolved admin. As this is the third or fourth discussion you've started about nuances of your block, though, I would again encourage you to just wait it out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: For context: I wanted to start a discussion on this page on if "app" or "application" should be used. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, is there a way for me to submit a discussion request rather than an unblock request? What I mean is rather than deciding "yes" or "no" to unblock, it would be a full discussion and then a final decision. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems like the kind of niche, obscure discussion that I p-blocked you for. Especially since, as I've already explained, "app" is currently the term used at mobile app, so this isn't something unresolved.

Per WP:UNBLOCK, a partially blocked editor may appeal their unblock to WP:AN for a community discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: How would I appeal at WP:AN if I am blocked from the Wikipedia namespace? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh right. Well, an unblock request submitted here may well lead to discussion and not just a unilateral review. And you can ask the reviewer to copy it to AN for community review. That's really something for you to figure out with the admin(s) who review the request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: How do I get attention from another admin without being disruptive? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By following the unblock instructions in your initial block notice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

Since I was blocked I have sorted-out most the issues that resulted in the original block. I have done a decent amount of constructive editing since then, and I think that my current block is preventing me from building an encyclopedia in several different ways:

1. I have found several errors or typos in pages within the Wikipedia namespace.
2. I have had several times where my block prevented me from starting constructive discussions in the Wikipedia_talk namespace.

I understand (and agree) with the original block reasons, but I think that they are now outdated.

Also, I would prefer a discussion over a simple "yes" or "no" answer. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

The time-limited block from Wikipedia and Wikipedia_talk namespaces is a favor intended to encourage constructive editing. No reasonable reason has been provided concerning why the block should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

• Note that the original block thread has been archived to User talk:Ilovemydoodle/old/2. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle: What are examples of "several times where my block prevented me from starting constructive discussions in the Wikipedia_namespace"? What is the meaning of your user name? Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnuniq: I meant to say Wikipedia_talk, not Wikipedia. I wanted to start a discussion on this page. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guessed that "discussions" meant talk. What would have been the topics of the several constructive discussions? Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnuniq: Some of them were thought of several days ago, and have been forgotten, but the one on the previously listed page would be about if "app" or "application" should be used when referring to application software. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, she's still doing "back-room" stuff like tagging for CSD -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Who’s she? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh! I saw no indicator for personal pronouns. Some of us use the gender neutral she. Which pronoun do you prefer? Could you indicate your preference on your user page or in your signature ?( as Tamsin does) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Male. I thought I set it globally but apparently it didn't apply here for some reason. Also, I thought I was only blocked from a namespace, not from the community entirely. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please reread the earlier discussion with Tamzin . The goal, as I see it, is for you to perform more article building and less "back room" stuff. A broader block is not for me to decide. Johnuniq: has your unblock request, and Tamzin is looking at the overall picture. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Returning to pronouns, you can add a userbox on your user page, and add preferred pronouns to your signature as Tamzin has done. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: As you can see from my recent contributions I have done very little "back room editing". – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Flag of Zeist, is not suitable 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't create content forks (e.g. here at Utrecht (municipality)). We already have an article about the city at Utrecht, and creating another article about the same subject is pointless. You also moved it to draftspace, thereby breaking the original redirect - it's never a good idea to overwrite a mainspace page with a draft and move it. If you ever want to draft an article for a title that's currently a redirect, start it in draftspace (or userspace) and figure out what to do once it's done (if you're the only author, copy-pasting the content over the redirect at that point works). Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 09:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Firefly: The city and the municipality are not the same thing. May I re-create the draft? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you feel there's a need for two separate articles, then yes, but please don't move an article (even a redirect) from mainspace in the process. Create it "fresh" in draftspace or userspace. firefly ( t · c ) 09:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Firefly: Okay. Also, I do think it is necessary to have two separate articles as it is quite confusing as it is, and the statistics are mixed (some are the city, while others are the municipality). – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine, I don't know enough to comment on the specifics here - I wasn't aware there was that distinction. My main concern was the moving about of redirects. firefly ( t · c ) 10:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Firefly: Sorry - I know this is unrelated, but I currently need to access Wikipedia Library and the (partial) block on my account is preventing it. Do you think you could unblock? I have solved most of the issues that got me blocked and there are only four days left. Thanks. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle I'm not aware of all the circumstances surrounding your block, but from the discussion above it seems that it was to encourage you to edit in mainspace and not get involved in "behind the scenes" things. I see no reason why that should be lifted as it expires in four days anyway. firefly ( t · c ) 10:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Firefly: It’s not about that, it's about accessing Wikipedia Library so I can get some information I can't find anywhere else. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle I realise this is something of an edge-case for the TWL entry requirements (partial blocks from projectspace I mean, particularly when the whole point is to encourage you to edit mainspace), but I'm still not seeing a convincing reason to lift the block so close to its expiry. In the meantime, I'd recommend posting at the resource exchange to see if someone can get you the source you need. firefly ( t · c ) 10:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Firefly: I cannot post there as I am blocked from the Wikipedia namespace. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle D'oh. My sincere apologies, I was clearly having a brain-dead moment. As usual, Tamzin has the intelligent answers below. firefly ( t · c ) 11:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The TWL team can and will make exemptions for users with blocks. However, a) the turnaround on that might not be any longer than the four days left on your block, and b) more importantly, you are currently blocked on two other Wikimedia projects, and automatic access requires no blocks anywhere, so lifting the p-block here won't change anything. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: How do I request an exemption? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, on an unrelated note, I still don't understand when or how I "egregious vandalized" Wiktionary. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you can ask for an exemption at User talk:Samwalton9 (WMF). And I'm not sufficiently familiar with enwikt policies to answer your second question, sorry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: 1)  Done 2) Probably admin error/incompetence. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by TrangaBellam was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

TrangaBellam (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ilovemydoodle! 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! TrangaBellam (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone help revert edits by 92.40.168.0/21 (I am having a hard time figuring out which ones are legit and which are bad) Thanks. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~)).   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: I am really confused?! I was mass reverting a cross-wiki vandal. What did I do wrong? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) When I first saw your edits on enWQ, I wondered why the admins there couldn't see you were trolling ("not GRP, not a sock of Antandrus", trying to find a way to ping everyone at once, etc.). Then you came here and you were disruptive but not as blatantly as there. But I started to return to my initial take when you requested an unblock here and explicitly requested that admins discuss it rather than immediately accept or decline. That seemed like deliberate timewasting. Then you made a similar request on wikt:User talk:Ilovemydoodle. Then I saw you'd done something similar at q:Wikiquote:Village pump § Feedback on proposal for new user right, trying to get everyone to comment on something without !voting. Then I saw your conduct at phab:T315694 and phab:T150421. And then you asked Graham87 to let you out of your p-block four hours before it was to end. And... I just ran out of AGF, Ilovemydoodle. If you aren't trolling, you are engaged in conduct so indistinguishable from that as to be treated the same. Everything you do, in every WIkimedia space, seems geared toward wasting as much volunteer time as possible.

So: You are blocked indefinitely. But I have included a caveat in the block log, which is that if any admin is convinced you are participating in good faith, they have my permission to unblock without asking me. I do remember what it's like to be an enthusiastic new user and get mistaken for a bad actor. But, well, like I said, I'm just out of AGF here.

I'm sure you'll appeal in this block. I will say in advance that I have nothing to say on this matter beyond what I've said just now, unless queried by a reviewing admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC) ed. 09:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: What edit here made me think I was trolling? Was it my reverting? The Graham87 edit? I am really confused. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin:

When I first saw your edits on enWQ, I wondered why the admins there couldn't see you were trolling ("not GRP, not a sock of Antandrus"

See here

Then you came here and you were disruptive but not as blatantly as there.

How was I disruptive there other than with templates (which was not bad-faith)

But I started to return to my initial take when you requested an unblock here and explicitly requested that admins discuss it rather than immediately accept or decline. That seemed like deliberate timewasting.

I did that because the previous appeals on my IP were rejected without (in my opinion) a proper understanding of what I meant.

Then I saw your conduct at phab:T315694 and phab:T150421

What "conduct?"

– Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ilovemydoodle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Flag of Zeist, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ilovemydoodle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Utrecht (municipality), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ilovemydoodle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Flag of Zeist".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ilovemydoodle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Utrecht".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]