Jump to content

User talk:54rt678

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Happy editing! Wikishovel (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for making my pages have proper citation 54rt678 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Trump (December 15)

[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 DoubleGrazing 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.
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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, 54rt678! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Trump (December 15)

[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 Ibjaja055 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.
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.
Ibjaja055 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowiska culture moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Knowiska culture. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hitro talk 08:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

[edit]

Please read MOS:DATEUNIFY and stop changing date formats. Tewapack (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry 54rt678 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should I change them back? 54rt678 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TarnishedPathtalk 03:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advise 54rt678 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

[edit]
I have unblocked this account, and reduced the user right back to auto confirmed. Normally we trust editors with the 30 days and 500 edits; the user right was applied automatically when your account met both thresholds. Unfortunately, you decided to cheat on the 500 edits. This happens; we've seen it. Lots of worse things are done on Wikipedia all day. However, you have demonstrated we can't trust you. You've deliberately misled the community. So you'll need to put in another 250 real edits. Here's the thing: The counter won't click automatically now. You'll be forced to ask a human being at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. And that person will review all of your edits. Welcome to consequences. BusterD (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
250 more than 518 or 250 more than 500? 54rt678 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can I design a user page 54rt678 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
probably not. you probably banned me from user page 54rt678 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how does TarnishedPath know about this. He reversed my gaza edit that he addmitted it was good. 54rt678 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no restrictions on your account, other than the one you started the day with. Lesson: cheat and we'll see you. This is not a place for screwing around. BusterD (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do I need 250 more than 518 or 250 more than 500? 54rt678 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume I need 250 more than 500? 54rt678 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sound mathematically. But you'll have to apply on the noticeboard I linked. The respondents aren't required to say yes, just because you've met the number. Now you'll need to demonstrate to them you have a reason to be on Wikipedia. Consquences. BusterD (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He reversed my gaza edit that he admitted it was good. 54rt678talk 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Content farm, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you want to write about what AI-generated YouTube shorts means for content farms, you need to cite a source that specifically discusses that; the source you cite only mentions "other social media platforms" having an issue with spam content, and is more about "copycat" issues. Belbury (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ortony moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Andrew Ortony. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Article needs multiple reliable secondary sources to establish notability. All sources currently in the article are either primary or the subjects own website. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPathtalk 04:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ortony

[edit]

Do you have a connection to the subject? TarnishedPathtalk 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no 54rt678 (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not 54rt678 (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK now worries. Once you've improved the article and you think it is ready for mainspace, please utilise the WP:AFC banner I placed at the top of the article and submit it for review. This is not compulsory, however I would highly recommend it. TarnishedPathtalk 04:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. how did you even get the username with your cool style? 54rt678 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Top right corner of your screen (I'm presuming you're using a PC) click on the little man and then select Preferences. Scroll down to the Signature heading and make your changes. Make sure you tick the box that states "Treat the above as wiki markup". In my case the markup for my signature is ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup>. Google "hex colour picker" to determine what the hex codes are for the colours you want to use in your signature. TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cool. did it work? 54rt678talk 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so cool 54rt678talk 05:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend not departing too much from what your actual username is with your signature. There's policy about it which is not heavily enforced (see WP:SIGNATURE). however, it's still policy. TarnishedPathtalk 05:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any experienced user will look at this sig and see an account using a signature which is 1) factually incorrect, 2) a brag, 3) an invitation to "ban" you. I'm not seeing you in the best circumstances, granted, but in my opinion, this signature has block me all over it. I'm not trying to be mean... BusterD (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And none of these edits will credit towards your EC permissions. People who are obviously gaming the system are often quickly removed from the community by some method. You've got one strike against you now... BusterD (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For cheating on your extended confirmed status. For lying now about it in your new signature. BusterD (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fixed it 54rt678 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do I also need human review to get extended confirmed on simple Wikipedia? 54rt678 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did WP:Retribution 54rt678 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! Now you're just trolling. BusterD (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do I also need human review to get extended confirmed on simple Wikipedia? 54rt678 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely wondering 54rt678 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely want to know do I also need human review to get extended confirmed on simple english Wikipedia too? 54rt678 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Wikipedia is a different project. I'd suggest you take any questions about extended confirmed rights there. TarnishedPathtalk 06:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
maybe I could EC there 54rt678 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello 54rt678! Your additions to Draft:Andrew Ortony have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that i was paraphrasing 54rt678 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing is still a copyright violation. Nobody (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely thought that I was doing significant paraphrasing but if you disagree that it's okay. I don't have any hard feelings 54rt678 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Wikipedia

[edit]

What do you mean that the article "should be salted"? Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:SALT to prevent the article creation because it is obvious that no article like this should be created since it is a duplicate 54rt678 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of questions

[edit]

How did you find my edit at Foley Gallery so fast and why did you revert it? I'm not complaining and left it like you did. Just curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

recent changes and add likely bad faith filter 54rt678 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what that last part means, but it sure doesn't sound good; thanks for sharing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're welcome 54rt678 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For info, @InedibleHulk, your edit was fine and should not have been reverted. qcne (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake 54rt678 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making mistakes by helping at recent changes is an excellent way to get those edits. I'm not joking. User:54rt678, thank you for finding that task and taking it on. I used to hit the random article link in the top left corner of the page and do copyediting. Working on stubs. I'm happy to see you're interacting with others in a responsible way. This is the kind of behavior wikipedians expect from each other. As you can see at your request, I'm not choosing to grant it, but I'm also not standing in the way. BusterD (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the kind words 54rt678 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I found this article, "randomly". Really, though, I believe in a perfectly ordered universe wherein mistakes are supposed to happen, as surely as anything anyone's intended. I'm leaving those headers as restored and would (in theory) have absolutely no problem if someone else later removes them again, for any reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK 54rt678 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a recent edit of mine was reverted by this user with no explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Environmental_Policy_Act&diff=1268695768&oldid=1268695705 I have un-reverted it but wanted to make a note here as it seems it is not the first time this person is making spurious edits. Ruthgrace (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions request for extended confirmed

[edit]

Hi there. Unfortunately, I have had to decline your permissions request. The incident of gaming the system was too recent. While you've gained a lot of editing experience since then, the incident was just a few days ago. I would not be comfortable with having you edit EC-protected pages just yet. However, I wanted to drop you a note to thank you for all your recent contributions and encourage you to keep contributing without the permission. Best wishes, arcticocean ■ 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the kind words. how long should I wait? 54rt678 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to wait until a couple of experienced users in good standing have suggested that you request the permission. That way, you can be surer that the next request will not be declined as well. Sorry that I can't give a fixed duration, but it's impossible to say. arcticocean ■ 22:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How could someone suggest me 54rt678 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what does it mean that I got a thanks 54rt678 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THANKS explains the feature. arcticocean ■ 06:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point people are thanking me left and right. should I like give them a you're welcome in their talk page if people thank me or not. Should I ask them for recommendations for EC? 54rt678 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so why would somone suggest that you request the permission. 54rt678 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, View (social media)

[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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, View (social media). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Pageview. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pageview. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started creating the outline but I didn't have time to create the entire article 54rt678 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded at Talk:View (social media) § Contested deletion. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your extended confirmed permissions

[edit]

I see you're well over 1000 total contributions so I've restored the previously lost editing privileges. You are on your own now. Edit BOLDLY but wisely, please. BusterD (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I truly and greatly appreciate it. 54rt678 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Minor barnstar
For tagging and helping to edit the Nothing page! Your tags have been accepted and I took a look at them, by the way :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar! Would you be okay if I move it from my talk page to my user page? 54rt678 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever works for you! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I left a message on your talk page 54rt678 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hi 54rt678! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Inah Canabarro Lucas several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Inah Canabarro Lucas, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Rapsodia Bałtyku

[edit]

Please explain the reason for your rapid revert of my edit of Rapsodia Bałtyku. Was there a typo in one of the {{interlanguage link}}s that I added? Fabrickator (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

give the diffs in edits 54rt678 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, I'll just revert your revert as unexplained. Fabrickator (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user Fabrickator; user 54rt678, any time you revert, for any reason, provide an edit summary explaining why. Otherwise the revert can safely be undone. The onus of 'proof' that a reversion was justifiable falls on the reverter, not the original editor. Fabrickator provided an edit summary explaining their edit. On what basis did you revert it? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message to 54rt678

[edit]

I want to reiterate that I've tried so far to help you in good faith—it's possible our communication styles aren't very compatible, but that happens. Probably to a fault, I tried to offer crystal-clear advice, because I know how frustrating ambiguities like those can be. If you want me to go away I'm totally happy to. You're allowed to be frustrated with me, but if you don't want to communicate about it, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, you did here isn't the kind of thing other editors are generally okay with long-term. I could be wrong, but I would've expected one or two details if you thought the edit was a problem rather than mostly spite playing a role, given the level of detail you've expected from me. I would like to keep collaborating with you or answering questions if you have them. Remsense ‥ 论 03:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

where did I do that? 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 03:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's Just that I've been looking at your edits and I disagree with most of them 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a good idea to go digging through another editors' contributions like that. See Wikipedia:Wikihounding. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia:Wikihounding precludes looking over someone's edit history for the purpose of resolving issues that have been introduced, though there is some discretion to be used so that your activity would reasonably be focused on improving Wikipedia rather than being a pest.
Now let's consider your recent edit of Sexual frustration which added "legal" as a basis for causing sexual frustration, but included a wikilink to "law", in apparent contravention of MOS:OVERLINK. Let me know what you think. Fabrickator (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator: My particular warning came after seeing this edit. Following someone around like that is not okay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: Apologies, if applicable, for continuing this discussion on 54rt678's page, but I have some concerns about the appropriate interpretation of WP:Wikihounding. I didn't really get the point of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Autobiography. Fabrickator (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Per WP:INTDABLINK, never do this. BD2412 T 18:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The chef I'm sorry but the links that had ( disambiguation) redirected to the name without the word ( disambiguation) and the article without ( disambiguation) was the disambiguation. the problem was not my changes. the problem was the article names themselves 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 16:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed you to the policy which requires the use of the redirects. If you continue to violate this policy, I will assume that you are either incompetent to edit this encyclopedia, or actively trolling. BD2412 T 21:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the page name if it is a disfiguration page without (disambiguation) it is a different configuration, even if it doesn’t have (disambiguation), it is still a disambiguation page. You could make the disambiguation page in a different article if you want to change the links 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 22:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a "disfiguration page" is not a thing that exists in Wikipedia at all. I am concerned about your comprehension. BD2412 T 00:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used to text to speech since I was washing my hands, while editing, and it thought I said disfiguration instead of disambiguation 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 01:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Nevertheless, the policy of this website is that every disambiguation page not at a disambiguation title must have a disambiguation redirect, and any links in mainspace to that page must be through that redirect. BD2412 T 01:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:54rt678&oldid=1288652509"