User talk:Notimelivelong

Hi Notimelivelong! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply to revert (April 2019)

I deleted the section as no other city in the region has such a section. The city is mentioned in many works of the classics of Russian literature - Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, etc. But in this section there is a specific novel that was recently published to me personally by a not known writer. This is just an attempt to promote it via Wikipedia. This is an advertisement.--DarqaviPalladin (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for telling me this! I gave you a notice since you deleted a very large chunk of the page without putting a summary. I see many vandals do this, so I just put the usual "possible vandalism" response. But in this case, you had good faith. I recommend you to in the future to add a summary for every deletion you make, so it will not be confused with vandalism. Thank you for letting me know! --Notimelivelong (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you!--DarqaviPalladin (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the Lubavitcher Rebbe

Calling a veteran editor a vandal, like you implied in this revert, is a good way to get that editor pissed at you. In addition, if information is not in the source, then don't write it as though it were! Debresser (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry about that. I should have been wiser in choosing a reason for the revert. At that time, there was a massive amount of vandals, so I was rushing to remove as much of it as possible. By mistake, I said that you were a vandal. I am very sorry for this, and I will make sure to choose my words wiser and slow down when making reverts. Thank you for letting me know, and I will make sure I will not make the same mistake again! The last thing I want is for someone to get mad at me when I am simply trying to remove vandalism for the good of Wikipedia. --Notimelivelong (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that I reverted your edit by pure accident. I was trying to revert the changes from the IP editor, but I clicked "undo" instead of "edit" on your contribution. Again, this is 100% my fault and I will also be more careful on what I am clicking. --Notimelivelong (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. No bad feelings. Best of luck in editing Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Lubavitcher Rebbes, see [1] and my edits last week Special:Contributions/89.243.11.167. Debresser is a rabbi himself but he resumes editing long before sundown on shabbos. Although he criticises others for unsourced edits and not following consensus he insists that the name of the seventh month is Cheshvan despite consensus that it is actually Marcheshvan and he has de-linked "Marcheshvan" to make it difficult for our readers to find the article. 89.243.8.79 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before sundown in America or even Europe perhaps, but not in Israel, where I live.

89.243.11.167, you are obviously a WP:SOCK and should be blocked as your predecessors. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL on film studio articles

You messaged me some days ago telling me my edits have been reverted because my edit summaries weren't clear, I tried to justify by stating that that a user named Trivialist were doing the same edits by citing WP:CRYSTAL. Recently they have started again to remove the section of films in development (after having that section reverted by other users) so I wanted to see if their justification was valid to remove that section or if that they were doing goes aganist editing guidelines. -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on users talk page --Notimelivelong (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.191.95.230

Please stop blanking the anon's talk page. Per WP:BLANKING: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages...If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: welcome to Wikipedia. ——SerialNumber54129 18:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any content from the page, I just reverted the deleted edit-warring warning. Also, thanks for letting me know that the user can remove warnings from their page. I will keep this in mind for the future. Cheers! --Notimelivelong (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're up to, but creating PleaseFeckOff (talk · contribs), DontBlockMeOrElseYouDie (talk · contribs), and YesTimeLiveL0ng (talk · contribs) was a bad idea. I'm guessing this is some kind of good hand/bad hand thing where you create obviously inappropriate accounts, report them with your "good" account, and ask for advanced permissions. If I'm wrong, you can appeal the block and give your explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I never created those accounts! I would never, and I mean EVER, make accounts so that I can report them. I never even filed a report against those accounts or even warned them once. If you look at my contribution history, you will see that all of my reverts are genuine. I spent my own personal time to help prevent vandalism, having fun while doing so, and then getting blocked for accounts I have never created. I have to note that on Thursday (April 4th) and Friday (April 5th), I used my schools internet for vandalism patrolling. I think this may be related to those accounts. The YesTimeLiveL0ng account is possibly related to one of my friends, since he knows about my account and possibly made it to vandalise my user page. Additionally, I have not yet requested for any permissions! I joined Wikipedia around six days ago, and currently, I don't have any reason to request for it. The only thing that I would request for is rollback, so I can use huggle to its fullest extent, but I don't think I can anymore since this block with be tied to my account for as long as Wikipedia exists. This really upsets that I am treated like a person that would actually try to destroy this site. It will also be harder for people to trust me now since I have a block logged on me. Additionally, it is even more upsetting that I am blocked INDEFINETLY, meaning I have the possibility of having this unblock request denied, and I will no longer be able to contribute to this site in my life. Many people even thanked my reverts, even though I am just new to Wikipedia. I even have 400 edits just within a short amount of time of me being part of Wikipedia. Some people did question me for a couple of small mistakes I have made, but they forgave me. Now, I honestly do not know how you tied those accounts to me, but I can assure you that I do not have ill intentions. I can guarantee you that I have not made those accounts and that I will never, ever, ever, EVER, as long as I live, do anything that malicious to ANYTHING. Also, if I DID want to do this, I would make sure that my IP is separated from those accounts. So please clear me from wrong doing. This is just upsetting that I have been practically banned for life from making further contributions for something I never done. These are possibly the last words I will type in a talk page, so please make a very careful decision. Thank for reading, and possibly, goodbye... Notimelivelong (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser relies on more than just IP addresses. I have also run a checkuser on this account, and I concur with the blocking administrator; the relationship between this account and the named sockpuppets is pretty cut-and-dried. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:39, 8 April 2019 (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.

Those accounts are confirmed to you by Check User. This isn't just someone's opinion. Meters (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If thats true, then those accounts were created when I was logged in at my school. If that is the case, then I didn't do anything. --Notimelivelong (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Letting all of this sink in, the last thing I would expect at the end of a Sunday is to get banned off Wikipedia. After refreshing the page multiple times, I am still shocked that I am banned indefinitely. I literally did nothing. Looking at the administrators unblock page, only a very small portion of people get unblocked, so I am not very confident at all to get my account unblocked. If I even do get unblocked, by passion for Wikipedia has been dashed. I guess this is my punishment for using a shared network. Also, it's obvious this isnt an opinion. If I am visualizing it correctly, the admin only saw those accounts created on that one day, on some random IP that is different than my homes, with a different editing frequency on those two days. That should of been a indicator that I was possibly using a public network. Thanks for your comment... I guess... --Notimelivelong (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Alright, I just talked to my friend about this situation. Here's what happened. I got into the library and signed on to Wikipedia. I then started to do my usual thing, patrolling the edit page. Then my two friends walk in and sit down next to me. My friend Anthony sat next to me and my friend Jason (the one who created the accounts) sat down next to Anthony. I started to stop and talk to Anthony and Jason started to make those accounts. Then, Jason asked me what my username was. I told him, and I am guessing he wanted to know to copy my username. I lied to him and I said "YesTimeLiveLong" and then he replaced the "o" with a "0". He then vandalized the Prospect High School website, and told me to look at it, so I did. I then saw the edits that was created and I asked him if he did this, and guess what he said. Times up, he said no. I then reverted the page, and right after I reverted the page, the resource officer walked up behind us and asked what we where doing. He then seperated us and asked me what I was doing. I just said that I was looking at the recent edits on Wikipedia so I can spot vandalism. Then he went to my friend Jason and asked him, and took him to the deens. Next period, the deen came to my classroom and brought me out. He then asked me the full story and I told him everything. He then said that I was all good and sent me back to my class. This all occurred on Friday. Now, fast forward to Sunday, 8pm. I then see I was blocked for Wikipedia for creating accounts, and I was shocked and didn't know why, since I have forgotten about the situation that happened in my school. I told my friend Jason to also make an unblock report, but I don't think he was serious about it. If you want, I can get my school to contact you guys to prove that I am in no wrong doing. Notimelivelong (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC) I would also like to note when I was using the computer, I used a VPN to connect to my home. I forgot to mention that. Notimelivelong (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining your unblock request at this time. It's clear that you aren't being honest here; the account User:YesTimeLiveL0ng is very suspicious as good hand-bad hand vandalism even without the two separate checkusers who have matched them to you.

Your protestations simply aren't convincing. CheckUser is based on more than just IP address, and your claim that you were using a VPN (and presumably your "friend" wasn't) simply doesn't make any sense.

Your options are to appeal to ArbCom, as described in the original block notice, or to take some time to think about this and ask to return at some point down the line. ST47 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2019 (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.

Also, my friend Jason used the same computer in the library for the unblock report, if that helps. Notimelivelong (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note when I was using the computer, I used a VPN to connect to my home. I forgot to mention that. --Notimelivelong (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking a step back and deciding how much deeper you want to dig this hole. Honesty...well, it would have gone a lot further 24 hours ago. But it's still better than whatever it is you're doing. ST47 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Notimelivelong (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47 You are not explaining the issue here. Please communicate with this editor in a way that he understands. By the way, I am a 10-year editor, and also don't understand. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting me. This entire situation is just a mess. Notimelivelong (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's currently happening? Was my unblock request viewed? Is there something that you all need from me? I really don't want this situation to span to months. Notimelivelong (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked after a Check user was run, You appealed and a different admin ran another chuck user and agreed with the block, saying "the relationship between this account and the named sockpuppets is pretty cut-and-dried". I doubt very much that any admin will unblock you after not one, but two, check users have confirmed the connection. Meters (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The connection was made because my friend made the account at the same time as me (explained in second request). Is there a way that a Check user can look at my second unblock request? It unfair that they didn't even bother with my second reasoning. Notimelivelong (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to clear up a misunderstanding. I talked to my used to be called "friend" and I understood what happened. I submitted another unblock request but it seems like you didn't notice it. Can you please review it? Again, I can have the school also contact you two to clear me. Thank you for reviewing it again. I don't want it to end with me being framed by my so called friend. @User:Yunshui @User:NinjaRobotPirate Notimelivelong (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your pings failed. See Template:Reply to. And neither the admin who blocked you nor the admin who reviewed and denied your unblock request will review your new request. You will have to wait for an uninvolved admin to decide to deal with it. Meters (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Thanks for the useful information... I guess I won't try to ping them. Is there anything else I can do to fix this whole misunderstanding? I even contacted the deen about this, and he said that he will email you guys if I get some sort of contact information to you guys. Thank you so much for helping me out! --Notimelivelong (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See what the next reviewing admin has to say. And this ping failed too. You cannot retroactively add a ping to a previously signed post. If you want to do that you have to redo the signature. Meters (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: alright, I will mention the two admins and see what they have to say. Thanks! --Notimelivelong (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to clear up a misunderstanding. I talked to my used to be called "friend" and I understood what happened. I submitted another unblock request but it seems like there was no response. Can you please review the second unblock request and tell me what you think of it? Again, I can also have the deen contact you two to confirm that I am in no wrongdoing. Thanks, @NinjaRobotPirate: and @Yunshui:! --Notimelivelong (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your current unblock request is basically the "little brother" excuse. That's a classic, but it generally doesn't work on me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Did you even read the part "I can also have the deen contact you two to confirm that I am in no wrongdoing?" I literally can have my school tell you the entire situation that happened! I am not making anything up, and I can prove it by having the school contact you! --Notimelivelong (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Alright, I really am tired of playing nice to be honest. This whole situation is bullshit. I go to school and I see the school is blocked for making accounts. I connect to a VPN to my home using L2TP and I do my usual thing. Then my friend comes in and made this "joke" account and vandalizes our schools page. I revert his shit and I get blocked for it?! Honestly, I can kind of see how you saw that as "boosting", but after reading the situation and saying that I am making "excuses" is just beyond me. I even talked to him today about this entire situation and he said that can email you about this. I will be more than happy to give you my deens email so you can contact him. I just want all of this to be resolved. Notimelivelong (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]