User talk:Earthsmoke91

Welcome!

Hi Earthsmoke91! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the rush...

...to be autoconfirmed? Be aware, that so far, every one of your edits has been reverted. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Autoconfirmed or confirmed users can create articles (except for create-protected pages), move pages (except for move-protected pages), edit semi-protected pages, and upload files (including new versions of existing files, except for upload-protected files). Edits that they make to a page that is under pending changes protection will be accepted and immediately visible to non-logged in users without requiring review or approval. Autoconfirmed users are no longer required to enter a CAPTCHA for most edits, including, but not limited to, adding external links. Autoconfirmed users may email users that have their allow emails from brand-new users checkbox off. They also may save books to the Books namespace. In addition, the Edit filter has a number of warning settings that will no longer affect editors who are autoconfirmed."

If you're attempting to quickly score autoconfirmed status by racking up pointless edits, please don't. Blythwood (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits continue to be reverted by various editors. I am in agreement that your replacement of existing words with others of not exactly the same meaning are not bettering the articles, and deserve to be reverted. Please rethink what you want to edit and why. David notMD (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to put words that are not familiar to them because my vocabulary is pretty large and extensive. Earthsmoke91 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors with far more Wikipedia experience appear to agree that your changes are not better. Wikipedia is not a place to prove you are erudite. David notMD (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When rewording, it's best to go in the other direction, making technical articles more accessible, since many of our readers are young or non-native English speakers. It's also not always possible to replace terms with synonyms, "Death is a universal process" is correct while "Death is a worldwide process" is not. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello. This is a message to let you know that you have made an edit summary that did not appear to be appropriate, civil or otherwise constructive, and it may have been removed. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Specifically, your edits to Death have been reverted by several editors, and if you persist may lead to you being temporarily blocked from editing. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was vandalism. Earthsmoke91 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t vandalize. Earthsmoke91 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Earthsmoke91, I believe David notMD meant to send you a note about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but may have accidentally clicked on a button that sent you information about civility. Instead of going back and forth, how about writing up a suggestion on the article's talk page Talk:Death where we can discuss it? – Thjarkur (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced "cessation" with "termination," thus replacing a correct word with an incorrect word. The first means something ends, the second means something was ended by an outside force. Hence the movie, The Terminator, not The Cessinator. The warning I posted is not the vandalism warning. The purpose of choosing that Warning I used was to indicate your change was not constructive. It had nothing to do with an accusation of incivility. David notMD (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Termination and cessation has the exact same meaning. Earthsmoke91 (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is a difference between something being stopped and something stopping of its own accord. David notMD (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit Earthsmoke91 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Earthsmoke91 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm WikiMacaroons. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Death—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 14:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please discuss your proposal for a new intro on the article's talk page? Your edits seem almost arbitrary, and they've been challenged by other editors. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits....

You've been asked repeatedly to stop with your random thesaurus-aided substitutions in the intro of the article Death. Do you personally think death is a "lasting cessation"? Please use the article's talk page to propose further "improvements". – Thjarkur (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, please come to the talk page to discuss your proposed changes – Thjarkur (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue doing this despite having been asked multiple times not to? And would you please mind explaning your addition of scare quotes to the article on the pandemic? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry i will not do it Earthsmoke91 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Death, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Earthsmoke91 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthsmoke91. I notice that you have repeatedly removed the word "permanent" from the first sentence of Death. Every time you've done this, someone has reverted your edit. From here, you have two options:

Stop doing that, or
Click here and explain why you think the article shouldn't say that. For example, you might explain that you think it's unimportant that death is permanent, or you think it's biased to say that death is permanent because you wish it was temporary, or whatever your reason is.

If you continue making this change over and over again, then there's a process for making it impossible for you to edit that page at all, so I encourage you to pick one of these two options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far, all of your article edits have been reverted. Please rethink your approach to editing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Kabel (typeface), you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at iris and the giant? The font Kabel is used in the game itself. Earthsmoke91 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Earthsmoke91! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Edits, 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) 19:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm Hakken. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fortnite Battle Royale, 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. Hakken (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Death. Theroadislong (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (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).

Earthsmoke91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Earthsmoke91 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:03, 22 April 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 understand why I have been blocked and I will not disrupt and make useful contributions instead Earthsmoke91 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason I was blocked is I kept editing Disruptively and I promise I won’t do it no more. Earthsmoke91 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]