User talk:AlphabetFIXER

Welcome!

Hi AlphabetFIXER! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing at University of Virginia

You may mean well with your edits to the University of Virginia article, but your style of changing one or two words at a time and then leaving a vague edit summary like "added word" is utterly unhelpful to everyone else because then we have to click through your edits one by one to figure out what you're doing. Kindly consider changing your editing style to make multiple revisions at one time, and please start using descriptive edit summaries. It makes peer review much easier. Thank you. 1995hoo (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, please

Please slow down; making hundreds of tiny edits within a short amount of time to an article is disruptive. Most of the edits you are making are arguably unnecessary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Stop with making 50+ edits at once to a single article. As said above it is disruptive, and furthermore you're adding in tons of unsourced trivia, such as at Pittsburgh Line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roanoke, Virginia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. When an editor reverts you, this does not mean you should just continue to add the same edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

You've gotten good advice from some very experienced editors here on your talk page - I strongly suggest listening to them. While I'm sure your edits are in good faith, most of them are unconstructive and your edit summaries are not helpful. It would be nice if you would acknowledge one of these posts so we can see that the message is getting across. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still doing the same sort of edits today. If you do not respond here I will be taking the matter to ANI. Please don't make me do that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just revered another zero-value edit at Gallitzin, Pennsylvania. I'm not sure this editor is listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that every one of the user's most recent 50 edits has been reverted, for whatever that’s worth. 1995hoo (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State abbreviations and punctuation

I noted some of your recent edits have consistently used state postal abbreviations in running text (e.g., "Pittsburgh, PA"). Please take note of Wikipedia's Manual of Style as to state abbreviations, which says to use the old-fashioned abbreviations in text and not to use the postal abbreviations. I noted you also failed to include a comma after the state abbreviation and that one of your edits deleted a comma after a state name (the change caused the text to read, "Mance, Pennsylvania in Northampton Township ...."). Please review MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA. While the omission of that comma is perhaps one of the most frequent and persistent errors on Wikipedia, that comma is not optional. Consider a common town name like Springfield. The state name functions similarly to an appositive in that it tells you which Springfield. The sentence would work grammatically without the state name, but the state name is included for clarity (where needed). 1995hoo (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphabetFIXER: It appears that you’re deliberately ignoring talk page messages, but I’ll try again anyway to demonstrate good faith after I reverted a large number of your edits today. Your recent "added state" edits that I reverted are pointless, unhelpful, and distracting to a reader. Consider the article "Magnolia, West Virginia," which is one of the ones I reverted. It is completely unnecessary to add references to West Virginia every single time the town's name appears in that article because the article's title tells the reader it’s in West Virginia, plus the article's first sentence also explicitly states the town is located in that state. It’s just plain redundant and distracting to add the state's name every single time—except, of course, in the rare situation where two towns with the same name in different states are regularly discussed together (I could see that scenario as to Kansas City, Missouri, versus Kansas City, Kansas, for example, as they’re right across the state line from each other)—but that’s not the situation in the articles you’ve been editing. Moreover, as noted above, your practice of using US postal abbreviations in running text (e.g., "Magnolia, WV") is unacceptable because it flat-out violates the manual of style, as is your refusal to use a comma after the state name when it appears midsentence (see my other comment above). Please read the manual of style articles linked in my previous comment before you go on another "state abbreviation adding spree" (for lack of a better description). (cc: @DrOrinScrivello: @Trainsandotherthings: @Magnolia677: )) 1995hoo (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're clearly wasting our time here trying to communicate with a brick wall. Escalated to ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note You are still free, and encouraged, to join the discussion at WP:ANI regarding your behavior. This is a collaborative project, communication with other users is required for it to suceed, so if you refuse to communicate, there is really no choice but to block you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #76280

is closed. User needs to communicate here on their talk. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here AlphabetFIXER (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing duplicate request and removing header formatting. Edits should only be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header/edit summary window. This is much easier to do if you click "edit" and not "add topic" at the top of this page(in desktop mode). 331dot (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2023 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Your reason here AlphabetFIXER (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC) As a new user to Wikipedia, I was unfamiliar with the "My Talk" page until it was clearly too late. When I created an account to become an editor, I had the pure intention of editing pages that of interest and or passions of mine to ensure that they were in the best shape possible. While I understand how edits might seem minute and unnecessary, to me they fit my perfectionist mindset. While I understand why I was blocked from editing, I would please request one more chance, and I will pledge that I will not make as many edits as I was making before and also not change small details and be more receptive to my talk page. I fully accept responsibility for my action, but I would so greatly appreciate a second chance. Thanks so much.

Accept reason:

I'm goong to remove the block, consider this a second chance. Remember to communicate. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox I'm thinking that there are two possibilities here. One, request that they get some edits accepted via edit requests before removing the p-block, or just removing the block per WP:ROPE. What do you think? 331dot (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with a ROPE unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:BX395 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BX395. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. firefly ( t · c ) 15:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]