Hi OcelotCreeper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I added media to Paweł Kowalewski profile after OTRS [Ticket#2020032510003381] Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski. Could you be so kind and accept the changes? Tahnk you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojdobrzejuz (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome to the encyclopedia. Just some advice for the future:

1. I'd highly suggest double-checking the edits you make before publishing them. I'm saying this because it turns out users get notified for every edit made to their talk page, no matter how minor, and unfortunately it looks like there's no way to turn it off (even though this is literally what the watchlist is for, but I digress). So for user talk pages, and in general, I'd suggest getting in the habit of using "Show preview" if you haven't already, and checking for other things (such as when you accidentally pinged yourself) to minimize this wherever possible. This brings me to my next point...
2. For linking to diffs, the format you're using doesn't display correctly, since diff links aren't really pages per se. There is a way to do it using internal links, but it's in the form of [[Special:Diff/(revision ID number)]]. For example, Special:Diff/945106525. Alternatively, if you prefer just using the full URL, use the external link format of [(URL) text to display] e.g. this. Note the single brackets instead of double brackets, and the space instead of a pipe symbol.

Ionmars10 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise reading this before participating in April Fools' Day, because unfortunately some of the ideas you've written have the potential to cause disruption and mislead readers, hence why these shenanigans are generally banned from the main namespace (i.e. new joke articles and redirects). Remember that policies such as vandalism still apply on April Fools. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ionmars10 Oh ok. Can you be more specific as to what ideas are more likely to constitute to vandalism though and what normally is considered a proper April Fools joke on Wikipedia? It is a good thing April Fools is happening in more than a week so we can sort this out. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OcelotCreeper, pretty much anything that involves editing the main namespace, per Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. (with the exception of certain humorous edits to the Main Page) Unfortunately, this includes basically all of the ideas that you've posted, since they're all either new articles or new redirects. I don't want you to feel discouraged though, because there are other ways to participate in April Fools without disrupting the encyclopedia itself, such as through joke deletion discussions (note: the process for joke AfDs is different than for regular deletion discussions, see Rules for Fools again for more info) You could try and find some inspiration by looking at archives of previous years. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I admit that I can be a hypocrite sometimes :P Ionmars10 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ionmars10 ok here are the 3 main rules: 1. They must not be edits on articles themselves, such as adding an extra sentence on Lego or something like that. 2. If the joke is a new article, you have to place Template:humor in the article to let people know this was created as a joke for April Fools. 3. The joke must be acceptable. Since I was planning on placing the humor template on the articles, and since the ideas are not edits on actual pages, I only need the acceptance from others.

I am also reading the AfD section for joke articles for deletion nominations so I can think of possibilities there. But if I will have to remove some of my ideas, I am expecting the previously created articles to go first. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Humor Barnstar!
		For making me laugh during these hard times. I saw your user page after I added the [April Fools!] at that Corona RfD.

Renerpho (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Okay. That's crossing a line. Don't do that redirect. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: I'll stop editing on that article in general ok? With an article like that where so many people can do so much just for one day, it's hard to remember that there is a crossing line between when your edits are vandalism. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just don't redirect to... that page? Just to be clear I didn't actually get redirected, I just saw it because of an edit conflict. You're welcome to edit constructively, as in, by adding pranks, but we might need to change the rules in the future so the page doesn't become the 2b2t of Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll stop redirecting the page, and I'll edit the beginning to say no redirects or blanking, or you'll be warned. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: Hey while I'm at it, can you get at least 1 other person to help warn some people that there are limits on the AF page, like redirecting, blanking, or changing the content of the april fools article? People are replacing the article to Joseph Stalin or Tommy Wiseau or Christianity and adding sections like ball stretching (which I guarantee you was what got that innapropriate redirect into my head). OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I find edits that cross the line, I've been warning the users, but it's a losing battle to keep that page stable until April 2nd, and I need to go to sleep too. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: So do I. you should probably have an admin you know stays awake at this time watch the page. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OcelotCreeper, Uh. That'll never happen. For many reasons. If April Fools ends up needing heavy supervision, it will be canned, and removed from the site —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy April Fools day! Jeb³_{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Category:!!!! Not anymore, 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 tests you 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. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Category:!!!! Yay this is the first Category on the list, 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 tests you 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. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing until 00:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC) for using Wikipedia as a blog, web host, social networking site, forum or a memorial site. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I want to ask, how specifically did I break this rule? I personally don't see it. Can you explain please? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonythedwarf: Hey did I actually break this rule, I don't understand. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OcelotCreeper, it appears that you are currently not here to build an encyclopedia. Have a look at WP:5P for details what this website is about. When the disruption spread to WP:AIV, I pulled the plug. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I think OcelotCreeper was just confused about which board is for what, they now have an active AN/I report open. The concerns they had about the user being reported are justifiable imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Yeah i didn't know you were supposed to go to AN/I for harassment reports. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, hi and thanks for guiding them. I do not disagree with the ANI report, and I did not block OcelotCreeper solely for making an AIV report. Over 400 completely project-irrelevant social networking edits from an account that has rarely been used to do anything else, though, made the decision easy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Oh, gotcha! Yeah, OcelotCreeper, I'm afraid TBF has given some pretty solid reasoning behind your block. As much as we all enjoy good fun, you should generally try to have substantial productive edits before diving headfirst into April Fools Day here. Luckily for you, the block isn't indefinite nor even for a long time. You're free to come back anytime after April 1st and get back into helping us working on building the encyclopedia! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: so what edits were the social networking ones? The April Fools ones, or the RfD ones? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The April Fools ones, I imagine. Pretty much anything that doesn't fall under the statement: "trying to build a robust encyclopedia" is "social networking" in this case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:@Moonythedwarf: So be bold not reckless, is that what it is? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: are you referring to WP:RFD? Because if so, i had no idea RFD counts as social networking on Wikipedia. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only for the activity on 2020-04-01, and ends at 2020-04-02. Times in UTC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is like five hours roughly speaking. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OcelotCreeper, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Please do not ping other users. Questions about your block can be directed at me; complaints can be made using ((unblock)). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

It sounds like this is referring to the April Fools edits I made, so I want to say the I regret everything I remember doing during 0:30-3:00 April 1 UTC. Knowing the unblock time, only decline if the block reason also involved the section that keeps getting renamed in the Great Edit War. Also, the thing I did that was the boiling point, putting a harassment report in the AIAV was proven to be because I didn't know you were supposed to put that in AN/I. Also, the main thing I did that led to this block was the stuff i did on the April Fools page, and other than the first 3 hours where I was a complete idiot, I was just trying to document jokes.

Accept reason:

Your block has expired. You are free to edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Unblock request. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC) @ToBeFree: Oh now I completely understand. It was because my edit rate on the AF page was so high compared to normal, it looked more like I created the account just to celebrate April Fools. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're almost there. Of course you did not create your account for April Fools editing; that would be a pretty far-fetched, unfair interpretation. However, on this day – which ends at the same time as the block –, your behavior was irrelevant to the encyclopedia, and became disruptive and maintenance-intensive pretty quickly. When that happens, a temporary block is sometimes the only reliable way to prevent further disruption from a well-meaning editor. I do acknowledge that you never intended to cause any disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Is there a specific time frame where it was disruptive, and how was it disruptive? Because I do regret pretty much everything I did between 0:30-3:00 UTC (I only said 0:30 and not 0:00 because of the first edit I made on that page). OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that the unblock request should have been immediately declined because of the time specification. The whole lot of edits on the day was bad. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Hey you know on the AF page there is a not-so-fun things list? Can you mention on that section the AN/I incident with a link, while also explaining what started the whole situation? I think that would be a useful contribution for the article. Thanks. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article – and that's why we're here. While you likely won't be re-blocked for implementing your suggestion after the block, it would at least add to the negative image. Please have a look at the community portal or the Task Center for more productive ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rules for Fools. Since you had some involvement with the Rules for Fools redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you back with productive edits already! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trolls World Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the page for Soul (2020 film), the teaser poster had the original release date of June 19th, but since the pandemic has resulted in countless delays of numerous films, Soul has since been pushed back to November 20th. I think it oughta be necessary to change the poster from the one with the June 19th date to the one with the new date. The one with the June 19th date has probably been recalled in the wake of the pandemic. Call me when you get the chance 15:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the file was changed already. If it wasn't, please respond by comparing the difference between the file yesterday and the file today. I linked the file history on RfPP. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file wasn't changed. Please change it. Call me when you get the chance 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to change the files yet, so I recommend you ask for what you want changed on the talk page for the file. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how, either. Let's just wait until Pixar rolls out a new (this time for real) poster for the film with the new release date. Call me when you get the chance 16:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check this tweet from Pixar that has existed for almost a day. They already have an exact version of this poster tweeted online. It is official. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's good. No more confusion. Case closed. Call me when you get the chance 22:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page The Creepers of arithmetic has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

G6, G7

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I completely forgot I created this for April Fools. I recall writing on it that I had plans to G7 it after April Fools, so I understand the G7 part. How was this a G6 though? OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancellation. Since you had some involvement with the Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancellation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently nominated several redirects that redirect to Jesus at WP:RfD, but you nominated them separately. Right now, I have combined the nominations, but in the future, it would be helpful if you nominated them as a group nomination like this nomination. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Oraneg. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Oraneg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all these stupid redirects? Please stop making them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my edit was that this sentence in the "Epic Movie" article makes no sense. Does he say those things one after the other? If so, they should be in quotation marks. I just can't understand what this is trying to convey.

• @Robert the Devil:I do agree it makes no sense either, but the edit itself violated WP:NPOV, that's why I reverted it. If you haven't read the rule yet, I suggest you do, or at the very least, read the page in a nutshell section. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that policy. If you don't know what that line is supposed to mean either, I'm just going to delete it. If whoever wrote it doesn't like that, they can rewrite it some way that makes sense. Robert (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert the Devil: Yeah, deleting the sentence was the best choice, mainly because it's not as notable as the other things listed in that section. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that you need to do research WP:BEFORE you nominate redirects at RfD, and if you do nominate them, you must tag them. You have not done this with the redirects to Anal Sex you have just nominated, please do it before nominating any more. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged all but one. The reason I didn't tag that one was because it was admin protected. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirects were untagged when your first nomination was speedily closed - you need to tag them again. I also see no evidence of you having spent any time researching these redirects before (re)nominating them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I came across a solid 5-10 of these redirects in the new pages feed just now, it definitely wasn't just one, and I don't see any page protection on the ones I've come across. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new proposal at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Dipwad. See what you think. SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Manor_of_Tottenham,_Wiltshire. SilkTork (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		In commemoration of what happened last year, and of what could have been the Great Edit war of 2021. Renerpho (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was on vacation, so I couldn't edit, but if I could, I would've clicked the Random Article for joke AfD's at least a hundred times. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a draft but haven't had much time to do anything with it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vchimpanzee: Thanks for the notice. I'll keep the draft in mind. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect You will die and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#You will die until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DAB page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § DAB page until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]