User talk:NicoTheMisspelledMiscreant

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Skynxnex (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a couple of additions you made to See also sections where you linked to demon in which seemed like an attempt at humor. Some types of humor are welcome on Wikipedia, but not jokey see alsos which can be seen as disparaging the subject. Thanks and hope to see you around more. Skynxnex (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

didn't even use the trout. shameful NicoTheMisspelledMiscreant (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I personally don't really like trouting and figured a welcome and then explanation of why I reverted you would be better.

But since I'm back here, I reverted another edit of yours that seemed to introduce an intentional spelling error taking advantage of lowercase l (ell) and upper case i (eye) looking the same in many typefaces, as well as changing the English variety, which shouldn't be done without discussion per WP:RETAIN. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sockpupet creature (February 7)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Timtrent were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NicoTheMisspelledMiscreant! 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! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sockpupet creature

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Draft:Sockpupet creature, 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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking

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).

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

Request reason:

the draft I made that caused me to be blocked was not a serious article and had multiple tags and warnings demonstrating such. there are multiple articles on Wikipedia that operate as such, such as the Wikipedia:Sarcasm_is_really_helpful article

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) 20:04, 7 February 2025 (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.

To whoever it concerns...

I am currently trying to adhere to the rules of the Standard offer. Do I have to make that known to anyone or anywhere or do I just wait until the requirements have been fulfilled? NicoTheMisspelledMiscreant (Pester) 20:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better advised to make a successful appeal here and now. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the advice! NicoTheMisspelledMiscreant (Nag/Pester) 18:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I admit that I was sockpuppeting and was also aware of Wikipedia's guidelines concerning such. I was originally blocked because of several vandalous activities/hoax pages. I was fairly new to wikipedia at the time my original account (this one) was blocked. Because I wanted to edit Wikipedia and didn't think I could make a good enough unblock req, I created a new account (User:Wikimanisbackuwu) I take responsibility for these actions, and would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I won't create anymore sockpuppet or intentionally disrupt wikipedia. (also for the record, I submitted a similar unblock req on my other account here, but I'm suppose to put them here on the sockmaster's account. I don't know the procedure for previous unblocks, so I have it here if its part of the consideration.) NicoTheMisspelledMiscreant (Nag/Pester) 19:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time with no more abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2025 (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.

NicoTheMisspelledMiscreant (Nag/Pester) 19:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]