User talk:Butternutsquash911 bruh

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).

Butternutsquash911 bruh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my bad wont happen again also can someone copy and paste my joe mink article in here i spent a lot of time making and researching it so i wanna archive it to google docs. jpgordan thasts not what i asked for also you ignored the rest of my request, please read my unblock request before deciding.

Decline reason:

No, we won't be restoring your hoax. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:13, 4 December 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).

Butternutsquash911 bruh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges." only "vandalized" once on an article I that was obviously a joke that wasnt public or public without my knowledge, please COPY AND PASTE the article into here i am not asking for it to be restored like Jpgordon somehow misinterpreted, so that i can continue working on it somewhere where it will not be deleated.

Decline reason:

It looks like you've got your wish regarding the deleted article. Closing this unblock request for now. Please read WP:GAB and talk it out with the admins who have come to help you before making another unblock request. Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 07:27, 5 December 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.

Welcome!

Hello, Butternutsquash911 bruh, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Joe Mink, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RA0808 ^talk _contribs 06:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joe Mink

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Joe Mink, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 06:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

slander

Unblock discussion

I certainly am under the impression that you are not here to build the encyclopedia. Please describe what constructive edits you would make, and I will ask the blocking admin. Otherwise, there is no point in unblocking you. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your hoax will not be reposted here. I have posted it HERE, where it will self-destruct after a week. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yooo thanks this saved me a lot of time Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at my history I added to The Telescope page 2 missing albums from this year (source bandcamp and me hearing them myself) so I would add stuff like however I may be preoccupied writing about the "funfactual" life of Joe Mink. also under "Speedy deletion nomination of Joe Mink", god bless his soul, it says "Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges." which makes me under the impression that to be banned i would have to repeatedly vandalize which I clearly have not. so in conclusion i should be unbanned because im chill like that.

-- barak obama Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed edits do not meet the requirement for WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I will leave your request for review by another admin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what proposed edits are you talking about? and how do they not meet the requirement? I can only assume you're referring to my (single) edit to the The Telescopes page and that was a 100% factual edit that can easily be proven so if find your disregard of its legitimacy disrespectful, I hope that wasn't your intent. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Butternutsquash911 bruh! You mentioned that you previously added two albums to the The Telescopes page. What types of contributions would you make if you were to be unblocked? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as I mentioned, I would add stuff like that, I like to read wikipedia, I noticed that the page was missing an album that I knew existed so I added it and if I notice something wrong/not up to date I would fix it, of course I would only change a page if I knew for sure it was correct and could back it up with a credible source which is what i did for the one edit i've made. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page history, you didn't add any sources to The Telescopes. Additionally, Bandcamp is not a reliable source. As such, the evidence we have of your editing one unsourced addition, plus the Joe Mink article, which doesn't provide much confidence. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first off what is not acceptable about using bandcamp (the link is on the page btw) as a source for albums that a band has released? second what source would be acceptable (I also checked their Spotify but I thought band camp would be a better source to mention)? was it even expected that i add a source? I would have cited and used a reliable source if it was clear that was expected to but it seems to be only expected of me. I don't see any sources cited under Discography and reviewing past edits I don't see anyone cite a source when adding or editing the discography. If my edit is really not reliable then go ahead and remove it but since I don't see how I did anything different then what was being done and multiple admins have seen the edit Im assuming it was fine and this isn't an actual reason for denying my appeal, if i did make a mistake on my first wikipedia edit then im sorry. the Joe Mink article, god bless his soul, was a joke to send to a few people I know and probably get deleted after 6 months. i never intended to have it be an actual article that random people could find as I never planned to have it reviewed (I assume articles must be reviewed especially from newer accounts before they can be public) for obvious reasons and I doubt it caused any harm. A pera ban seems unnecessary and not even the correct call if what RA0808 is correct. - bruhternutsquash Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Butternutsquash911 bruh, you're blocked indefinitely, not permanently, which I realize sounds like the same thing, but in practice simply means "you're blocked until you can convince an admin to unblock you". That could be as early as tomorrow, or maybe it will be years, but basically the only way you can make it truly permanent is by becoming abusive and repeatedly trying to evade your block. So on that front, don't worry.

Regarding sources, I'm afraid you've set a high bar for yourself by having your first article creation being a joke about mass murder. Please have a look at WP:RS and WP:V. When you've read those thoroughly, come back and let us know. -- asilvering (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok read both the articles and I still don't know what i did wrong or should have done. I checked and bandcamp has been cited as a reference on wikipedia before without problem so I don't understand what was wrong with me using that, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Future_Sound_of_London https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Benedict_Taylor_(musician). I also "didn't add any sources" which i true but because I was under the impression that wasn't necessary after reviewing previous edits.

I don't know how im supposed to change an admins mind when they either they are telling me something incorrect/putting unreasonable expectations on me or the admins are correct but wont tell me what I should have done and why. I explained in my last reply the reasoning behind the Joe Mink article, god bless his soul, if thats worth anything.

Im not sure what im supposed to do, I was asked what I would add to Wikipedia, then I get told I did that wrong but not what the right way is, If im unbanned I have no problem editing in the correct way but I would need to know more specifics on how. looking over the link you posted, WP:GAB, I think a unblock is the right move, I also dont think i should have gotten a indefinite ban, but im biased.

side note can I change my name to Bruhtternutsquash? Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandcamp is a primary source. On Wikipedia, we try to use reliable, independent sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look over my full reply this time.

In my last reply you will see that it is currently being used and albums have been added to the page without a source before. what should i have done? what source should i have used? how should i have added a source? if my "proposed edits do not meet the requirement for WP:RELIABLESOURCES" and this is a problem why have they not been removed? Im doubting that there was ever an error in edit and this is only being used to deny my appeal. Please give me more than 1 sentence answers as ive been trying to figure out what im supposed to do, if my appeal is just going to be ignored bplease be upfront with that so I know to no longer waste any time answering questions from admins and explaining myself. it is quite frustrating to wrtie 2 pharagraphsish to only receive that as a reply. if what the admins have said is true there are clearly errors being made not only by me that are not being treated the same. if you want to keep me banned due to the Joe Mink article, god bless his soul, I can understand that, but using my one edit, that was to standards that article and similar articles are held as a reason is absurd, I will gladly learn from my mistakes but that would require someone to tell me what I should have done and why. If you dont want to help then please refer this to someone, if there is someone, that does.

-- Bruhtternutsquash Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butternutsquash911 bruh, yes, you are being held to a higher standard than normal editors. As I already explained, this is because you started your time here by creating a joke about mass murder. The time for you to learn from your mistakes is now, not after you've been unblocked. Regarding your implied questions, we don't need a "reason" to keep you blocked - we need a reason to unblock you. What you're trying to do right now is convince an administrator that you know how to edit well and will do so. There's no rush here for any of us - you can take all the time to read policies and ask questions that you need. Pleading with admins, telling them they haven't read your posts, and "explaining yourself" isn't going to be helpful. Take a deep breath, read WP:RS and WP:V again, and come back with your questions. Your question about Bandcamp has already been answered.

Myself, I don't much care about dissecting your previous edits. I don't think Significa liberdade really does either - she's just pointing out that you don't really have a history of strong edits you can point to as evidence that you know what you're doing. (Also, she's probably the kindest block appeals admin, so try to keep her in your corner.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? I am trying to learn now thats why im asking what i should have done differently. ill rephrase that one part you brought up, not unblocking me because of the Joe Mink article is a vaild reason. I dont think be frustrated that admins are not reading my replies fully is unreasonable. I have read the link you've sent and explaining myself is part of WP:GAB so Im under the impression thats what im supposed to do, my bad if I misunderstood the contents but it seems like im doing what im supposed to.

questioning my edit is fine but saying i did something wrong and not being clear on what is annoying. as I have said, I am willing to learn, even before being unblocked and I am trying, ive read the links youve sent and reviewed pages but I just dont see what I did that was wrong, if i did I need someone who would be willing to teach me. again that was edit, Im not claiming I understand everything about wikipedia I brought that up because I was asked what would I add to wikipedia if im unblocked. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not understanding what you did wrong, it might be helpful to take some time to go through some of Wikipedia's introductory materials, such as Help:Introduction or The Wikipedia Adventure game. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your account, we have two pieces of evidence for how you would contribute to Wikipedia. One is the Joe Mink article, for which you are blocked. The second is a single, unsourced edit. That edit is not problematic, but it is also not a quality edit. You certainly would not be blocked if that were your only edit. As such, you need to prove to us that you would beneficially contribute to Wikipedia. Given your edit history, we have no evidence to believe this would be the case. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok so if I understand, youre saying that edit is neither proof that I am or am not fit for wikipidiea, I completely understand, I brought that edit up as an example of edits I would make. the part i didnt understand was why I was being told that the edit was not fit for Wikipedia. the edit is 100% factual and I can provide good sources next time if there is a next time. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide three sources that you think could be added to The Telescopes article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure

a short article that contains this line " The band's line-up is in constant flux; there can be anywhere between 1 and 20 members on a recording." this line is also on a lot of recent articles about The Telescopes but I can not find the quote in any of the references. the article is of what it claims is a press release. Im not sure if this counts as a quote but since it was a statement that the band put out and not from a secondary source I believe it should have a reference, I tried to look up how this should be formatted and am still unsure. https://tinnitist.com/2024/09/26/albums-of-the-week-the-telescopes-halo-moon/

interview with the main guy, similar to other stuff cited but I think has have enough info not the page that it could used to improve the page. https://louderthanwar.com/in-conversation-with-stephen-lawrie-the-telescopes/

this articles have information on a collaboration with Bridget Hayden who founded a band with its own wiki page, she is not mentioned at all on the telescopes page, the article says that she was part of the band, touring and writing so I feel this may be important. https://www.last.fm/music/The+Telescopes/+wiki and https:/

ok heres 3 links that I think could add info, third is a secondary sources, the first and second second are a press release and a interview, there is already an interview under references so I hope that its ok.

also the link attacked the reference 18 on the page reference does not work, at least for me. I believe supposed to link to this article https://www.perkele.it/?p=8121 Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'attached Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying! Unfortunately, none of these are good sources. The first (Tinnitist) is an edited press release, which means something that has been created by the band and released to the press, making it a primary source. The second (Louder than War) is an interview with a band member, making it another primary source. The third (Last.fm) is a user-generated source and is considered generally unreliable (see WP:LASTFM). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok well I mentioned in my reply that the first one was a press release and stated its importance to the article because the press release is quoted in the article but not cited at all, I don't know what the the proper way citing a quote from a press release is but im assuming something should be changed, no?

the second article is a interview, there is already an interview under resources so I dont understand what makes one ok but the other not.

I can understand why the third isnt allowed but for there are other sources i saw claiming the same thing, I will make sure to look out for user generated content.

Im sure you know this stuff well but I dont think you read why I believed these sources could improve the article, and for me to learn I need someone to explain things such as how press releases are to be used on wiki pages if at all and why some interviews are allowed but other are not. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have already pointed you to Wikipedia's guide for reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please refer to my previous comment where I pointed you to Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure game. People in this conversation are trying to teach you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is getting incredibly frustrating so this will be my last reply. I have repeatedly been told that sources are not reliable and when Ive pointed out places they've been used, because I want to understand what the difference between my source and similar ones, Im sent the same wiki article over and over that does not answer my question. either there is a serious problem of people using non credible sources that are being allowed because admins wont take to time to look at the instances I've noted, or, the source is fine because of reasons that no one will explain to me. If sources such as Bandcamp, interviews, and press releases are not valid then I expect someone to review the articles i've sent, but as it seems admins do not read one of my replies fully so im doubtful.

Thank you to all admins who considered my appeal, I will no longer be arguing over it.

Please do not respond to my replies anymore unless its to explain how I was wrong about your standards for sources as I do hope Im wrong. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Wikipedia is a resource created by a lot of volunteers (even admins are volunteers!). That means there are a lot of articles that have poor sourcing and inaccurate material. As such, I understand that it can be confusing as a new editor like yourself to see poorly sourced articles (or articles using bad sources) and be told you shouldn't use those.

The issue you're facing right now is that you began your experience editing Wikipedia through vandalism (plus one OK-ish edit). As such, you are not being given the same benefit of the doubt as other new editors. To overcome your block, you must prove that you will be a benefit to the project and are willing and able to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butternutsquash911 bruh, there are lots of places on wikipedia where things are outright wrong, let alone simply not good. The whole thing has been built by volunteers over a period of more than 20 years, so a lot of existing articles may have been fine when they were created, but now aren't up to our standards. We can't wave a magic wand and fix everything immediately (though we do try, using various automated and semi-automated tools). This is a bit perilous when you're trying to learn how to edit wikipedia and you're basing your own edits off of existing articles, since you have no idea if those articles are good or not.

It looks to me like @Significa liberdade is trying to coach you through identifying which sources are "good", rather than just which would be "acceptable". Your press release and interview are acceptable - we can use those for uncontroversial facts, but not for establishing things like notability. Last.fm is no good at all. (You can find it on WP:RSP.)

Sig just sniped me, but I don't want to rewrite my own comment, so here it is, somewhat irrelevantly. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intended for my last reply to be my last but your response was very helpful so thank you. there is defiantly grey area in what sources can be good for an article, I dont not truly think removing all info from bandcamp, interviews, or press releases is a productive thing to do and I doubt the admins think that either, I think the sources I have used other than Last.fm are all adequate for their purpose and should not be immediately labeled as bad so I found this whole appeal very frustrating.

I not trying to argue for an unban, Just pointing out why immediate disregard and sending WP:RS and WP:V cant be the only answer to a question on if a source is good or bad. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butternutsquash911 bruh yes, you can change your username, but let's not worry about that until you manage to be unblocked. asilvering (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also it was attempted mass murder, joe mink was the only death. if thats any better... Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. A joke about murder is a joke about murder whether the murders were successful or not. Please keep in mind that administrators have come across a lot of genuinely terrible people in their time here, people for whom the jokes are not really jokes at all. We don't know which one you are until we get contacted by police or see you on the news. So we have approximately zero patience for that kind of joke. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious that joke mink, god bless is soul, is 100% fictional and there was no way that it could ever exist as an article someone could find. it was not meant to be seen by people outside of the ones i sent it to, I explained how I assumed that a unreviewed draft article cant be found by random people, assuming that I would commit a crime based on that article is crazy. I REPEAT I AM NOT CRAZY I AM NOT CRAZY!!! sorry got a bit taken away at the end

-- Bruhtternutsquash Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation does not account for why you moved the article to the main space. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what at means, sorry. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace is what can be considered 'real' articles. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok so if i didnt move it there it would be fine? or not? also I dont know how I didnt that, I know i messed around with stuff but I wasent aware I could move stuff to the "mainspace" Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would still be blocked if you had not moved the article to main space because 1) we take "jokes" about mass murder seriously and 2) Wikipedia is not web host; it is an encyclopedia. Additionally, two days, you moved 'Draft:Joe Mink' to 'Joe Mink'. Informing us that you didn't know what you were doing does not help your case. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes I remember that I saw I could remove "Draft:" from the title which I did without knowing it would put it on the mainpage, Im trying to be completely honest, I made the article, I Removed "Draft:", I don't remember how I did it but I did, I doubt I wanted it to go to the main page ever because obviously it would get me banned, and I think i was right...

also a it wasn't a joke about mass murder it was a satirical article about a fictitious terrorist plot. does that make it sound better? Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok well lets agree to disagree Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In that case, I'll extend you the standard offer: disappear for at least six months, making no edits whatsoever, under any account. You can work on other wikimedia projects if you like, but not English Wikipedia. At some point more than six months in the future, you can try for an unblock again. -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer WP:ROPE Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you might get in six months. But if you are at "agree to disagree", there's no rope to give you; you've already proven that the block was justified. -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, man, I've dealt with at least three honest-to-goodness mass murderers in my time on Wikipedia, one of whom edited primarily about, you guessed it, mass murders. That's before we count all the people I've had to report to law enforcement for threatening to commit mass murders. So yes I have very low patience for hoaxes about mass murders. Also no, it wasn't just about attempted murder, there was a section about copycat attacks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) ~~I expected a tad more then only three, tbh.~~ ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three that 'zin knows about. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey to be fair I didnt say in the article if any copy cat attacks were successful, but that doesn't really matter. also Im clearly dont have intent to replicate a fake person. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really, really not helping your case. You will not convince any of us that the Mink article was not a bad idea. What you need to convince us is that you will edit productively in spite of it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

moving it to the main space was a bad idea, the article has gotten a lot of positive feedback! oh and yeah I wont write any joke articles on the mainpage, ill stick to google docs. Butternutsquash911 bruh (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]