User talk:IIlIlIl

This is IIlIlIl's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pennington Family (April 24)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pennington Family and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IIlIlIl! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. Thanks! IIlIlIl (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muncaster Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland. 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) 05:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muncaster castle[edit]

I have reverted your edits to Muncaster castle because you have deleted referenced material (particularly the bit about the artworks stored there during WW2) and have added unreferenced material. You could help yourself by providing an edit summary when you make changes as then other editors could see what you are trying to do.

I appreciate that nobody likes being reverted, but it happens to all editors – so please don't be discouraged. In my view, it's generally better to get started in Wikipedia in smaller steps. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will change it back as many times as I have to. Cheers :). IIlIlIl (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sir John Frecheville Ramsden, 6th Baronet discussed proposed modifications to the castle with Edwin Lutyens from 1916, but nothing came of these; Lutyens did design the Muncaster War Memorial, constructed in 1922, on a commission from Ramsden." was the only thing deleted as it pairs in historical context to the added sourced material. If you want to debate it, YOU are showing how ignorant you are. Make sure you get your claim right and know your history. Cheers. :) IIlIlIl (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely may not change it back as many times as you have to. That is edit-warring, and it will get you blocked. Please instead discuss the changes you're making that others are objecting to on the article's talk page. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And nor can you touch my edits just because you want to. I did my research, do yours. You can assume whatever you want but tell me not to... be quiet. IIlIlIl (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do what you want, I literally have infinite accounts. You crying because I held someone accountable says more about you. Cope and seethe. Nonetheless, someone came towards me with attitude and ignorance and I matched them and corrected them. Simple. IIlIlIl (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the bitter cold irony coming from this is wild. Be quiet. IIlIlIl (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

"On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." :First off, people on here react like children. My edits are sourced, when someone did not like them and complained on two pages (harassment), then deleted them, I replied-- then people get upset and cry. First off, I only de-sourced and deleted one thing, to which the guy complaining could not even properly name. It paired into historical context to the added material. This person deleted all of my sources MANY times and no one bats an eye. Even after they all got sourced after HOURS of work and their complaining. I hope whoever I am interacting are not adults, that would be very, very sad. Nonetheless, articulate what rule I broke instead of banning me and then making me appeal because I know I am not guilty of sockpuppetry. So what is the excuse? Also, just because I say something does not mean it is true. I went to the moon! See how easy that is? "I literally have infinite accounts" refers the the ability of ease of access of this website. This comes after someone deleted multiple hours of my work. Additionally, I never admitted to an edit war or to start one, as this is my first and sole account--4 days old, For anyone to assume I know how things work around here reflects the classic story of a child in a power trip. I learned very quickly when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ThoughtIdRetired deleted everything, saying it was unsourced whereas RIGHT NOW LITERALLY, there is unsourced material and a weak history that focuses on the family of the cousin of the Pennington Baronetcy--Ramsden. I recently made an account to start editing as a hobby. If you can read, and check logs, you would notice my valiant effort in adding material. My edits and work is not trolling, based in it, it is not sloppy work, etc. It is work that is on the Muncaster Website itself has on it and work cited and worked on for the past half century by the Pennington Research Association. Now if someone wants to harass me on many pages, delete work, then be a hypocrite, I will match their energy and if people do not like it they can firstly, not start it, and then not add to it. I am respectful, but not to those who are not in return as I have no obligation otherwise (nor does anyone else, welcome to Earth). I can only say forward I can do better as the past cannot change, but that does not disregard the behavior of all of those who literally are piling on to me with no basis. I have 2-3 people respond and be wrong but they are trying to correct me. Wild behavior, they are not so self aware. However, if you want to make the website's reputation a certain way, continue on this path. My edits and information is invaluable, and so is my time. Like I said before, cheers! :)

Decline reason:

Confirmed to JonusPennington. Both accounts have edited the same article, so a clear violation of WP:SOCK. No other sockpuppet accounts found at this time. Yamla (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

having two accounts is not a sock. I made an initial edit, and realized you cannot easily change your name and wanted to remain anon for the rest of my edits. this is completely okay. you guys are on a power trip, holy shit. IIlIlIl (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"having two accounts is not a sock" There are some situations where it isn't, but most of the time it is. For one thing you must disclose the account you have abandoned. You didn't. "I made an initial edit, and realized you cannot easily change your name". Actually it is, for precisely this reason. "this is completely okay"' No, it's not, not unless you disclose your use of the earlier account at least when you open the second one. "you guys are on a power trip, holy shit" It's never a good idea to disparage the admins in your unblock request. Much less use profanity. "Your own admin are breaching rules by checking IPs as noted on my page" If they believe someone is controlling two accounts without disclosing them, they have the right to use Checkuser if they have access to that tool. You allege a violation of the Checkuser policy without giving specifics. ""'To be a sock, you have to have mal intent." Using two accounts and not disclosing that is considered malicious regardless of the character of the edits. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2024 (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.

in addition, "CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to: Vandalism; Sockpuppetry; Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project; and Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. The tool may never be used to: Exert political or social control; Apply pressure on an editor; or Threaten another editor into compliance in a content dispute."

Your own admin are breaching rules by checking IPs as noted on my page. To be a sock, you have to have mal intent. None of that applies. I am not disrupting a Wikipedia page by adding information, and citing it (when it has little content, and the content is has needs sourced). We are talking about maybe 24 hours of editing recently, so let's have perspective and not delude ourselves.

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).

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

Request reason:

we can keep doing this. admin still power tripping. I would hate to live inside of any of your heads. IIlIlIl (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious trolling. If, at some point, you would like to make an unblock request that doesn't involve trolling and insults ("I would hate to live inside of any of your heads."), you can do it via UTRS, as below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2024 (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 for being 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hiding such edits from your edit history is a legitimate use for having a second account." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_anonymous#:~:text=As%20an%20editor%20on%20Wikipedia,Remaining%20anonymous%20is%20your%20right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIlIlIl (talk • contribs)

Discussion[edit]

IIlIlIl, I'm willing to discuss this with you, as I think you are actually trying to improve the articles you're interested in, I find your explanation of the first account completely believable, and based on this edit and other behaviors, it seems like you might be young. Which means you may have the capacity to mature. And you're also very new, which means you don't know what you don't know. We can work with that, but it's up to you whether we'll give you that chance.

You're going to have to figure out how to work here. No one is in charge, and we're all volunteers with limited time. We work collaboratively, which means your behavior toward other editors is crucial. We have a steep learning curve, and to have any chance not to be seen as disruptive, you're going to have to start learning instead of immediately jumping to the assumption that anyone who is disagreeing with you is in the wrong. When multiple highly-experienced editors are telling you that it's you who are in the wrong, you need to listen.

When you say things like I will change it back as many times as I have to and And nor can you touch my edits just because you want to, you are telling us you intend to edit-war.

When you say things like I literally have infinite accounts, you are telling us that you intend to sock.

When you say things like we can keep doing this, you're tellling us that you don't care whether you're wasting other editors' time.

We don't have time to waste trying to read your mind; we're going to take you at your word.

I recommend that you delete the current unblock request -- it could get your talk page access removed -- and let's talk. Valereee (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]