Hello, I'm TheImaCow. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Arcane (TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taynix! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would normally assume good faith, but deliberately ignoring the sources and showing Tomatometer as a source for "mixed to negative reviews" lead me to believe that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Keep in mind that further reverts/disruptive editing/vandalizing will likely result in a block. ภץאคгöร 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Rotten Tomatoes isn't a good source when it literally compiles all the reviews that make up the show's reception? At the least I don't think "panned" is a good word choice because that would imply literally everyone hates it. That word choice is misleading.--Taynix (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomatometer doesn't show anything, neither "Fresh" nor "Rotten" means "mixed to negative". There are two sources that are cited at the end of the sentence, Vox.com and Screen Rant, one of which describes the reception as "largely panned" while the other states "largely negative". You're trying to add your own interpretation by making the Tomatometer look like the source even though there are other sources that literally say that the series got panned/negative reviews. Tomatometer cannot be the source for critial reception summary/generalization as I described above. If there are no references for review roundups, Metacritic's Metascore description can be used. ภץאคгöร 18:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I think "largely panned" would be better than just "panned" though.--Taynix (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MegumiFushiguro.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kate Bishop (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Thanks! Numberguy6 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Taynix requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. Singularity42 (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I removed the one-line that was a violation of the Wikipedia's policy at WP:NOTWEBHOST (the only content on the userpage was to ask users to watch your YouTube videos) but you reverted with an edit summary implying you have ownership of your user page. You don't. Since the only content remains a policy violation for user pages, I have now tagged it for deletion under WP:U5. Singularity42 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my youtube video. It was literally a rickroll...a joke. Go away, boomer.--Taynix (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. That includes promoting or publicising your YouTube channel. JBW (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh boomer alert Taynix (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User:Taynix. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Singularity42 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~)).  ... discospinster _talk 16:31, 23 June 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I do not think I should be permanently blocked. I got angry at another user, User:Singularity42 because he falsely accused me of promoting a YouTube account ("asking users to watch your YouTube videos"), when in reality the link was a rickroll and meant as an obvious joke. I admit my last few edits were immature but I've seen sense now. If you look at my other edits, I have hundreds of constructive edits working on many pages. I have created several major articles on important pop culture characters and actors. To totally ban an account and IP address over some immature vandalism is unfair since I have owned up to my mistakes. To add on, the reasoning for the block was "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia." That is not true at all. A few misconstructive edits, which were mostly trolling and not serious attacks, should not result in the lifetime ban of an account. I'm not saying to undo the ban entirely, just not to make it permanent. Taynix (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were enough of a jerk that the block should stand. You should consider the standard offer and ask again in six months. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:40, 23 June 2022 (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.

Just to be clear, I never accused you of promoting a YouTube account. That was an administrator who originally deleted your userpage. You nonetheless targeted me for your personal attacks. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few personal attacks against me and others, including after I warned you about personal attacks:

1. The first one was calling me a "dumbass" on your user page.
2. After I warned you about not personally attacking other editors, you responded to my warning by calling my a "dipshit" in direct reply to my warning about personal attacks. To your credit you deleted it. But then immediately went to the third example below.
3. You then vandalized my user page with with this lengthy personal attack.
4. You also referred to me as a "boomer", which you doubled down on in reply to an administrator after my warning about personal attacks.

Singularity42 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To point 3 that was an obvious copy and pasted troll, source: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jhclark/insult.htm

Yes, I admit I called you names, but I've realized how immature it was. If calling someone childish names is enough warrant to ban an account entirely, without looking through my countless constructive edits on this website, then that feels unfair. Taynix (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I take no position on the length of the block. @Discospinster was the one who blocked you (he got to to the block before I even learned you had vandalized my user page), and a reviewing admin will decide about your request to shorten it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this discussion now, along with the list of examples of incivilty, and thought I'd alert those interested to this example here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]