User talk:EeeveeeFrost

saving this for later. ignore: ping|JohnBlackburne ping|Imaginatorium ping|Sławomir Biały Would you mind simply remove that sentence then? I do believe it is highly misleading to laymen. Removing it wouldn't affect the rest of the paragraph or the lead for the matter. Ok? Thanks. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, EeeveeeFrost, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ty! EeeveeeFrost (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Adolf Hitler. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ukrainian language. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: That was not a test edit. I genuinely thought that the word "language" has to be in parenthesis. Don't send me these template messages EeeveeeFrost (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could try adding a "please" to the request. It would also be appreciated if you could use edit summaries that are aimed at competent adults instead of, "... lead people to that nazi stuff...", "I fucked up", etc. This is not your homework, and you're not communicating with your friends. Leave expletives and childish nonsense for forums and blogs. Other editors want a succinct summary as to what content changes you've made and, where applicable, relevant policies and guidelines. Watered down ideological misgivings do not make for a constructive ES.

The other thing that WP:CIVIL adults do is apologise if they've made a mistake. A reasonable edit summary would have read, "Self-rv: my apologies, all. I thought the parentheses were mandatory for disambiguating language name space articles." Even just a, "Sorry, all. I made an error!" would be fine.

Don't make requests as if they were demands and you might find other editors being courteous in return. If you keep making errors and not explaining yourself properly, you'll keep receiving warning templates. You really do need to have some experience and trust in your abilities accrued before you demand respect. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: I don't need you to teach me how to be an "adult". If you're stupid enough not to realize that "no, i fcked up" implies that I had made an edit before that and I'm reverting it, then that's your problem. And don't bring up stuff that are not related to this discussion, such as things I've said in other talk pages. I'm not stalking you and haven't even checked your user page. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, EeeveeeFrost, I urge you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. At this point, you are a new user who is crashing through articles like a bull in a china shop, and your editing behaviour is under scrutiny (it's not stalking). You also need to familiarise yourself with policies and guidelines before you edit. For example, talk page entries like this are hot-headed and provocative. Edit summaries like this are also provocative: the template was not "spam". Be sure that you understand what WP:SPAM is before invoking it.

In the long run, it won't make a jot of difference whether you know your stuff, or whether you're right or not because WP:COMPETENCE is required, and competence is highly contingent on how you approach others, not just the content changes you make. Within a handful of edits you've managed to antagonise a number of editors. Okay, I'll get out of your hair now, but I do hope you pay heed to what I'm trying to explain to you because your attitude so far will be antithetical to how effective you'd like your editing to be. Collaboration and not WP:WIN wins the day. Happy editing, but please try to tone down your aggression. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: Hmmm ok. Honestly, I didn't see my behavior as being hostile. I had been lurking for quite a while, but I didn't expect that editing was such serious business (in a sense that it requires such professionalism). Well, thanks for the heads up, I'll be more careful next time :) EeeveeeFrost (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, EeeveeeFrost. I understand that having your own talk barraged by 'you've been naughty' templates can feel offensive, but experienced editors usually don't have time the time or energy to leave comprehensive, personalised accounts as to why you were reverted, or why your behaviour is inappropriate. I can see that you're approaching subject areas with intelligence, and believe you to be a good faith editor. I'm sure you encountered an abundance of truly awful behaviour while you were lurking, but the fact that it's tolerated when it involves experienced editors and admins shouldn't mean that it's a good idea to add it to your wiki-lexicon at any point when editing. Given that there are more than enough aggressive editors out there, and that we know nothing about any other individual who edits here other than what they're prepared to disclose about themselves, it's easy to forget that every user is a person, and that the anonymity and isolation in which we work makes us even more vulnerable to feeling put upon if we're shoved around. Having read over my initial missive to you, I realise that I came across as being far more brusque than I'd intended to be. The immediacy of the experience means that it's easy to be offensive (and defensive). I've painted myself into corners without realising it enough times to know better... but, nevertheless, I know that I'm bound to repeat the same mistakes because I'm a hard-head. If I can keep my big yapper under control more often than I overstep the civility line, so much the better.

Welcome aboard, and feel free to ping me if you'd like a third party to take a look at something. Again, happy editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]