User talk:Exessia

1,000 edits + 60 days old = RfA[edit]

RfA, please? Please make the edits at least 1,000 edits and you are at least 60 days old (about 1.3 months old), then you can request for adminship.

Adminship is not for new users. Exessia (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross month of the year, Requests for adminship on around September 2019 plus around 1,000 edits! Exessia (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As if you are requested for adminship, you're a young administrator. Exessia (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 year old ≈ 5,000 edits

Five pillars[edit]

See Wikipedia:Five pillars. Exessia (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot NG[edit]

You're starting to ask and report false positives to ClueBot NG?

Liz[edit]

Liz, please? Ask Liz if you have some false positives, and see AN/I. Exessia (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is so young administrator and she is about 4 years old. Yeah. Exessia (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Exessia (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first 100 edits[edit]

The first 100 edits of Exessia (talk) and you may going to be autoconfirmed likely after a week. Exessia (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Densely packed decimal Listed in watchlist[edit]

Template:Densely packed decimal listed in watchlist. Exessia (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently unwatched. Exessia (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Factorial are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 10:10, 30 June 2019 (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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:37, 30 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

No sock puppetry.

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked for sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2019 (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.