User talk:Formerlychucks

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wojak, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit it, i didnt have sources for that Formerlychucks (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Clickhole, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous Formerlychucks (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't 4chan or ED. If the disruptive behavior continue sactions may be issued. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“this isn’t 4chan or ED” then why was @JPxG made an admin? He frequently uses these dogwhistles in talk pages. HaytchT (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, he's not breaking any rules it seems. Formerlychucks (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OhNoitsJamie: You're a *******. 2.99.113.34 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[I AM NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PERSON] Formerlychucks (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formerlychucks here, I am a BIPOC trans queen btw. though 2A00:F41:28BA:8C47:1531:530A:8966:6610 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note

In this edit, you change a named citation and replaced it with a new citation. If you are using the visual diff view, you can change to the wikitext view to see what the visual editor did. I just tried using the visual editor and it looks like it says This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode. Usually, we add additional parameters to the existing reference, but in this case it wasn't possible with the visual editor. I've fixed it, but please take note of it the next time you encounter a source like this. Note that there's also an online tool that can help you automate this process of rescuing dead sources with the Internet Archive here. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Formerlychucks (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm SchreiberBike. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of mammals of Yemen have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Just don't do things like that. You know better. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Eve. 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. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, i understand. Formerlychucks (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The_Lawnmower_Man_(film). Formerlychucks, please cease all of your disruptive editing this instant. You have been given multiple chances, more than the average vandal, yet you continue to deface Wikipedia. Based on your edit history, you have made multiple references to Soyjaks, and on the Lawnmower Man, you made reference to the following:

~~TND - A racist joke stemming from the eradication of black people~~

~~Cobson - A Soyjak variant from 4channel's /qa/~~

~~"spine-tingling bone-chilling gut-wrenching" - A reference to Soyboys~~

~~"Kang" - a racist reference to the "way black people talk" according to users of your website~~

~~You are clearly a vandal and not here to build an encyclopedia. If you continue, you will be taken to WP:ANI and the appropriate actions will be taken. Thank you.~~ LOLHWAT (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning is misplaced as Formerlychucks did not introduce the vandalism. Now they didn't remove it when they edited the article either, but its not blatant disruption is what I am saying. Another note: this edit per MOS:OVERLINK is not constructive.

But I think Formerlychucks isn't intentionally trying to to bring harm here, at least not from their edit history as of writing this comment. So let them edit and enough with these threats already. But as far as people from imageboards go, some of them might just be dedicated trolls that try to be subtle with their sneaky vandalism over a long time period, but we'll see. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. Vandalism is not the purpose of my account.

Also, regarding the "unconstructive edit", the supposed Japanese release lacked a citation and i added a ^{[citation needed]} template to it. It needed that. Formerlychucks (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the excessive linking. Read the link that I provided. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. The diff highlighted that racist part, and I mistakenly thought he placed it. Sorry! LOLHWAT (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were using the feature for comparing selected revisions, right? Formerlychucks (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. LOLHWAT (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. KNHaw ^(talk) 19:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'een

'een 'n the 'i Spotemgottem (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense ‥ 论 13:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you obsessively reverting my edits when there is nothing wrong with them? [1] [2] [3] You are doing this with zero reason. This is highly immature and disingenuous, you should return them as they were. Otherwise, they warrant a block. Formerlychucks (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When i call out their immature antics, it is a personal attack. Yet when they say "They are somewhat impulsive and immature", It isn't? Come on now, you have to be fair to us both Formerlychucks (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't imagine it was your describing their antics as immature that led to the block. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File talk:On the backrooms (essay by Tamzin).oga

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as File talk:On the backrooms (essay by Tamzin).oga, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File talk:Jew Trans Soul Rebel.jpg

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as File talk:Jew Trans Soul Rebel.jpg, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Community actions should not justify an indefinite block from all of wikipedia. But if I have to be much nicer from now on, then i will. Previously, I did not care about the wikipedia editor community and my only goal here was to improve the information that people consume, this is because I thought that the articles themselves were the only thing that really mattered. But if i have to be nicer on these colon articles, then I don't find a problem with that at all. You can unblock me and rest assured from now on. Formerlychucks (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not a chance this approach is going to fly. "Community actions" doesn't adequately explain your misdeeds. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Philknight They are indeed misdeeds, I just said that I won't continue them. I don't think you read my post correctly. Formerlychucks (talk) 15:32, 25 January 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.

Your User talk page is filled with warning notices. It can't be a surprise that there is a problem with your editing. You do understand that most editors work fine without receiving notices that they might be blocked, right? And if you are just now understanding that civility is important on Wikipedia (which is one of the Five Pillars), I wonder how much you ever really knew about editor conduct on this platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I do understand. I do make productive edits, and I have apologized for my misdeeds. Vandalism is not a core purpose of my account (and it doesn't have to be). I am actually interested in improving wikipedia wherever I can. I don't have to make unproductive edits, and if i have to take things seriously from now on, then I will. The indef block should be reviewed. Formerlychucks (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I think you may have misunderstood the reason for the block; it was not for vandalism, it was for personal attacks. You may have an easier time getting unblocked if you address how some of your past actions were harmful to the encyclopedia, and describe steps you'll take to keep them from happening again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just addressed the warning notices that Liz mentioned. Thanks for the advice, though. Formerlychucks (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Formerlychucks

User:Formerlychucks, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Formerlychucks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Formerlychucks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BugGhost 🦗👻 20:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's a sarcastic page, you're not supposed to take it seriously.

I cannot add comments to the discussion though? Formerlychucks (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]