User talk:Renamed user ejiwheismwkwiwkqlroi21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Darubrub! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Tartan357. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Libertarian Party (United States), 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Example...[edit]

...of what, exactly? Lone Internaut (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What edit did that editor made that was disruptive? Also, I noticed you are in a edit war with that editor. (Redacted) Darubrub (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent is the arbitrary substitution of terminologies - which probably he doesn't appreciate, he tried on other articles to do the same, without success - and the removal of sourced text that he claims is "biased", without any kind of multi-user analysis, discussion or consent on if the source is or not actually biased. His talk page has other issues reported in the past days, although most of his vandalism are being rollbacked by now.
I suggest you to tell him to stop, since he is causing the problem. Anyway I will go to the Project talk if he continues. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I get your point, I warned him of his vulgar language. Darubrub (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already reported him. Hope they will get the thing done. Users like these should have no place on Wikipedia. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing but please do not modify my text (or other users' text) in talks: I write it as I intend it to be - if I write Wiki, just leave Wiki. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Darubrub (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Darubrub! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Question on reliable sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arsenal (Roblox) (February 12)[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 CommanderWaterford was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please see Wikipedia:Notability_(toys_and_games)#Video_games
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 when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Darubrub! Having an article 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lua (programming language), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. 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) 06:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:AlgoExpert[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:AlgoExpert, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. EN-Jungwon 15:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Renamed user ejiwheismwkwiwkqlroi21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello! I have noticed that I have used 2 accounts. I shall admit it. I had contributed to the project in other languages and in simple english during this block. And for the malicious intent, I apologize. Thank you! Darubrub (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

But it wasn't two accounts, was it? It was at least three. One of which (OklahomaMan19681) vandalised Wikipedia. This wasn't an accident, this was deliberate. Your best bet is to apply under WP:SO. Once you are eligible for that, you'll want to address your dishonesty here and probably show a history of constructive edits elsewhere. Yamla (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2021 (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.

Yes it is two. That account and another called RedbloomsLLC. Wdym 3? Are you referring to my main or my ip address? Darubrub (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OklahomaMan19681, RedbloomsLLC, Darubrub is three, not two. If you've also been using your IP address, that's also a concern. --Yamla (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you're referring to my main. No if you check my IP adress, there are no contributions from that IP. Darubrub (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For any future unblock request, Darubrub's claim appears correct. As of now, I see no evidence of editing from IP addresses by this user while signed out. --Yamla (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 2[edit]

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).

Renamed user ejiwheismwkwiwkqlroi21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello! I have already admitted to using this account, but used OklahomaMan19681, and RedbloomsLLC for hiding vandalism. I shall admit that the vandalism was on purpose. I already acknowledge and apologized for the actions I have done. If you are going to decline, that is fine, but do note that I am going to contribute to the simple English wiki and Wikibooks. Thank you! Darubrub (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't tell what contributions you wish to make here. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2021 (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.

I have listed my contribution wishes in the final UBR. Darubrub (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock 3[edit]

(Redacted)

You indicate that you are retired, or plan to retire once unblocked. Is that accurate? If so, there's no reason to lift the block. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change my username to say "Retired" and also put the retired template on my user page. Darubrub (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there's no reason to unblock you, nor should we unblock you. If you withdraw your open unblock request, I can put the retired template on your user page. Note that you are not permitted to set up any other account or otherwise continue editing. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Darubrub (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You are welcome to change your mind in the future, particularly if you decide to follow WP:SO. You are welcome (but not obligated) to remove any content you wish from this page apart from the declined unblock requests. That means you are also welcome to remove this comment from me (or indeed, the entire section). --Yamla (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 4[edit]

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).

Renamed user ejiwheismwkwiwkqlroi21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Withdrawing retirement after trying to compare my self with other sock puppeteers and turns out I'm not that bad. Sure, my actions are still unacceptable and deliberate, but, there are worse. I have addressed all of the reasons for the unblock declines and I would like to be unblocked to contribute back to programming articles. I might have vandalized, but I haven't attacked other Wikipedia editors and haven't gone in edit conflicts with others. Thank you! Darubrub (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I'm not as bad as other sock puppeteers" could be one of the worst unblock rationales I've seen. At this point, the standard offer is really your best option. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:24, 23 February 2021 (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.

Final Unblock[edit]

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).

Renamed user ejiwheismwkwiwkqlroi21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello! I have been blocked since I was confirmed by technical evidence to use the sock accounts: OklahomaMan19681 (last edit was vandalizing west Virginia) and RedbloomsLLC (abusing edit filters last time) for vandalizing the English Wikipedia. I apologize for the deliberate actions I have done. After the previous unblock request was declined, I decided to take a further look at WP:SOCK and WP:VOA to give myself a further understanding on my reasons behind the ban. I have made some contributions and plan to continue contributing to the simple English Wikipedia as per contribs. I have originally made my account just for making some contributions to IPA, but now, after a interest in coding, I now wanted to use this account for improving articles on programming. I'm sorry for using "not as bad as other sockpuppeteers" as a defense as I was angry to use stupid comparisons as a defense. I am going to admit I have made a lot of mistakes in the past and not a person you would expect as a useful editor, but I wanted to make a final unblock request to show I have improved upon my actions and became a better person. I am sorry for being so ignorant to not accept the WP:SO. I am known to have impatience. I am also apologizing for requesting a global username change to "conceal and obfuscate my bad conduct" as per this. I was just angry that my name has been slapped with sock puppeteer.

To wrap up, I understand what I have been blocked for and I apologize for that. This block is no longer necessary. I made sure to read the articles related to the reasons why I have been blocked. I will promise to make sure I'll never use sock accounts nor vandalize again. I want to go back to contributing to programming and election articles. If you want me to take the WP:SO, fine, feel free to decline. If you are willing to give me another chance, that would be appreciated. If you look at the comment from my first unblock request, I have not used my IP address as a sock-account. I understand what NinjaRobotPirate is concerned about and I shall try to do what he wants to see me improve. That is all I have done to address everything I have been responded with and thank you for reading. Darubrub (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have wasted our time long enough. Since you refuse to take the standard offer, I am removing your ability to edit this page. Any further requests will have to be done through WP:UTRS. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:58, 24 February 2021 (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.

Stop hand
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 why you should be 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.

Edits to Lua[edit]

As it turns out, this editor made two edits to the Lua page which broke the object example.

If editing code examples, it’s good form to test the examples to make sure one’s edits do not break the example code in the article.

The first edit broke the code because it now refers to a non-existent table. The second edit broke the code because it changed the arguments list given to vector.new() without changing the arguments given to the function when called as vector:new().

Point being, it’s really sloppy to edit Wikipedia articles to break code examples. I have since fixed the examples, and expanded the section.

Since the editor has now been blocked, it’s all moot.

(We probably should have a discussion about what belongs in the Wikipedia and what belongs in Wikibooks, but that’s another discussion for another day).

Samboy (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dgraph (July 12)[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 Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:
This draft is written from the viewpoint of the vendor of the product, focusing on what the company says about the product. Product notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject.

This draft does not establish product notability. You may ask for advice about product notability at the Teahouse.

This draft is about what the vendor says about the product, and not what third parties say about the product. It does not establish software notability.
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 when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:AlgoExpert[edit]

Information icon Hello, Darubrub. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:AlgoExpert, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 47220[edit]

UTRS appeal #47220 is now open. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too busy IRL to look at this in detail, so I'll leave it to another admin. If anyone feels it should be an unblock then I won't object. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing this user's contributions and standing on Simple Wiki, I support an unblock. I'll leave to user:NinjaRobotPirate as original blocking admin to have the final decision. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no idea what the unblock request says. if the unblock request is that reasonable, why not restore talk page access so it can be posted on-wiki? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Renamed user ejiwheismwkwiwkqlroi21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello! I am making another request after a good time editing on simple-wiki. 6 months ago I was blocked for using the Vandalism only accounts, OklahomaMan19681 and RedbloomsLLC. After more time looking at policies like WP:SOCK and WP:VOA, I understood that this wasn’t acceptable. I understood why am I blocked and I will promise to avoid the behavior that lead to the block. I understood that I can get easily reblocked if otherwise. Noting from my simple-wiki contributions, when I get unblocked, I plan to contribute to the food articles on en-wiki. Thank you for reading. Darubrub (Inform me) 13:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per discussion here. May user be as constructive on ENWIKI as they were on SIMPLEWIKI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse unblock based on SIMPLEWIKI constructive edits. Please see links above-- 8,000 edits, rollbacker. No concerns noted on talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone wonders about those two accounts that edited my talk page. simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 61#Impersonation case. Darubrub (Inform me) 19:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darubrub, your unblock request seems to be saying that you have trouble tying your own shoelaces and need to be told "vandalism is bad" before you understand this concept – even after you report other people for doing the same exact thing. But if someone really wants to unblock, go ahead. Given your inability to tell whether vandalism is acceptable or not, I think you may want to get a mentor to help you learn other basic policies on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: With all the considerable respect you are due, I think this user has shown that they did learn and grow, and while the block was needed to bring them to the point of being able to edit constructively, they have shown they are able to do so. They have moved beyond the past for which they are blocked. Let us celebrate that rare success of being able to unblock and welcome a user back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, you can call me an asshole. I can take it. I'm just tired of being the internet's babysitter. Darubrub, I'm sorry for insinuating that you're an idiot. If you have a thick skin, you can come to me if you need assistance from an administrator. You might never like me, but I can get things done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_ejiwheismwkwiwkqlroi21&oldid=1143261105"