User talk:Wyatt2049

This user is in school.

This user may be away or inactive for varying periods of time, especially if he has exams.
Although he may occasionally be able to do some editing, talk page messages might not receive a timely response.

Hello. Please leave a message below. Please use a header. Thanks!

Welcome[change source]

Hello, Wyatt2049, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes, especially what you did for Yes, I am Welcoming Myself!.

You may want to begin by reading these pages:

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested pages or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will show your username and the date.

If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.

Good luck and happy changing! Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 23:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planned deletion of Feet per second[change source]

This page is not notable at all. If you plan to expand this article, please remove that template and do so. If you don't edit that page within 3 days, I will ask an administrator to delete it.

Also, please add reliable sources to articles.

--Znotch190711 ^{(Talk - Contributions - CentralAuth)} 05:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing user warnings to orange[change source]

Hello. Please gain consensus for doing things like that before you do them. The templates are used by many people and those people should have a say before you decide alone to change them. If I remember correctly, we had a discussion about it a few months ago that ended in consensus to keep it blue. Please change them back, and if you want to propose to make them the orange icon you can do so at WP:ST. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems BRPever has undone them, so no need for you to do it now. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of President Donald[change source]

The page you wrote, President Donald, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. DannyS712 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[change source]

Hey Wyatt, hope you're doing well. I'm Kevin, and I'm an English Wikipedia administrator. If you've got a moment to chat, I'd appreciate if you could shoot me an email – my email is wikipediakevinsli.com. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · enwiki) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: Unfortunately, I cannot do an email. You can just let me know here! Thanks! --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 23:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wyatt. I was going to offer to find a time to schedule a call or provide some friendly advice since it seems like you've gotten a bit of a rough start, but I notice you may be a minor. If you are a minor, a call is probably not a good idea. I started editing when I was younger, too, and I know some of the snags that it looks like you're hitting, so I'd appreciate the opportunity to provide advice and discuss your goals and interests on Wikipedia in a less formal on-the-record environment. If you don't have access to email, that's probably not a good path right now, but please consider it a standing offer when you are more able to access that kind of communication. You've got a lot of promise, and I hope you stick around, but as you are probably figuring out, there are a bunch of ways to annoy the broader Wikipedia community and that's not always pleasant. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · enwiki) 23:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: Yes. My goals on Wikipedia are to edit and make weather related articles better. I would also like to be an admin oneday. However, I did an RFA here, and it did not end well. Another goal was to keep grammar proper. I did what I did on the main Wikipedia because I was just experimenting, and I thought I could get away with it. Anyways, that did not end well, either. With regards, Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: And can I get unblocked yet. It is the peak of hurricane season, and I really would love to help edit the 2019 hurricane season articles. And I cannot be detailed here, which is not good for me, since I love being detailed. Thanks. And see message above. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 12:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a CheckUser block, I'm unable to lift it without the consent of the CheckUser or the Arbitration Committee. But even if I could, I wouldn't right now, because among other things, you wrote some things during your block appeal and after it (some of it now revdel'd) that make it really difficult to unblock you in the near future. In any event, I want to make sure you know this standing offer: if in the future you have access to email, and are interested in editing Wikipedia, feel free to use me as a resource – my email is up above. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · enwiki) 22:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[change source]

You have been blocked indefinitely from changing Wikipedia in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing via WP:ONESTRIKE. If you think this block is unfair, you may ask to be unblocked by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private, please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont:

Request reason(s):
Okay. Where was I being disruptive? I was trying to prove that I can do good. An E-mail I received was to keep going on simple to prove myself. I have not been disruptive. I feel like that I have been wrongfully blocked. I have been accused of being disruptive. And I have misread a few sentences, and applied for RfA. And that is now disruptive. And I get Indefinint block for that? What if I have Dyslexia, and I misread things? That is disruptive, and I do not deserve to edit again? If I get a block for this, can I at least have it for some time and not forever. Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 13:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Consider this a final chance, of sorts. Take new things on slowly, please ask questions if you have any doubt on what to do (If you have a lot, you can use my talk page rather than spamming ST), and try to ensure what you do is helpful and not likely to be contested by other editors. If you fail to contribute constructively, I will reblock you for a period of one year, hoping you will change in that time period. Vermont (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very large number of your edits here have been either disruptive or an issue with competence is required. The one that I decided was enough to finally say enough was enough was you nominating an article for deletion claiming a particular subject had not won any races when that was very clearly not true. So whether it is disruptive or an issue of competence. Our WP:ONESTRIKE rule came into play. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: I misread the article. That is my fault. I was not trying to be disruptive. Please unblock me. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 13:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJSasso, are you there. If so, I was not being disruptive. The edit to donald trump was a misreading. And at the RFA, I did not add that code. I have been vandalism patroling with twinkle. I was not disruptive. Thanks. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 13:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't plan to unblock you but I will leave your request up for another admin to decide. However, you have made enough "mistakes" in my opinion that you should not be editing here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DJSasso so I am not allowed to misread? Can I just prove myself to be a good editor. I will read more slowly. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 13:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DJSasso, and then you remove release dates from Two Happy Feet without explanation. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 13:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed as they were added by a long term abuse account. There is a discussion about it on Simple Talk. And no, multiple missreadings in a short period of time, creating an Rfa which was never going to succeed amoungst other things is more than enough to block you per WP:ONESTRIKE and WP:CIR. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DJSasso Could you please explain how that is disruptive. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 13:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you were blocked on en.wiki. We have a policy that if someone who was blocked there does even the slightest thing wrong here they get blocked without any warnings. This is because en.wiki keeps trying to send us their blocked users to rehabilitate and we are not a rehabilitation wiki. As I said above, I will not be unblocking but your request is still open, if another admin wants to unblock you they can but I wouldn't count on it. Your best way to get unblocked here is to get unblocked on en.wiki, typically our onestrike blocks last until the block is lifted at the original wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: I'll note I'm in favor of an unblock. Yes, this user has acted slightly disruptively as of late, but it seems to me to be done in good faith and in an attempt to contribute constructively. There are places on the project where they may be a great help, and they are also still learning how we do things here. If you don't have any objections, I'd like to unblock. Vermont (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's your call. I don't particularly believe them after their track record on en.wiki for vandalism and then edits here that look suspiciously like vandalism and outright lies in nominations for deletion. The entire reason for our onestrike guideline is for editors like this. Even if they are here to edit constructively which I reiterate I don't actually think they are. They fail abysmally when it comes to competence is required. -DJSasso (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Can you unblock me now? --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 22:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. I'm going to wait to see if Djsasso responds. Before I take any action, can you describe to me what kind of editing you want to do here? Also, please be more careful in the future if you're unblocked, especially with things like unilaterally changing heavily-used templates. If you're ever unsure, you can ask at WP:ST, and you're always welcome to ask on my talk page or email me at vermont@vtwp.org. Vermont (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Hello Vermont. So, the edits I would like to make will be mainly weather and tropical cyclone edits. Since it is hurricane season, I will do a lot of that. I will also use Twinkle to revert and warn on vandalism. I also will vote in RFCs, AFDs and AFBs. I may also propose new templates if they come to mind. And fixing simple errors, and nominating bad articles for deletion are all of my goals for simple wikipedia, and maybe even become an admin one day! Thanks! --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 23:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: And one last thing, I would love to support 大诺史's RFA tomorrow. If I can get unblocked so that can happen, I would appreciate that beyond belief. God bless, Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 01:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good edits and inappropriate warnings[change source]

So you have been reverting valid edits that simplified articles and made them better and then warned the user that their edits were vandalism when they were not. This is unacceptable. Continued editing in this manor will lead yet again to a block. Also there is no need to warn a user a second time when the person who reverted them already warned them as you have done to some users. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: Okay. I will note that. I am trying to learn things around here. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 14:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly suggestion[change source]

Hello. Like DJSasso above I have been concerned about your reverts and warnings. But I am happy to hear you are trying to learn how things work around here. May I offer a friendly suggestion? Perhaps it would be better to start off with just the content areas here. That is, doing small edits and improvements to pages. After all, that's the main goal of this wikipedia and there is a lot of work to do. I suggest you focus on content for a time and stay away from anti-vandal work, reverts, RfDs, etc. This will give you time to learn the ropes while being helpful. Right now being cautious in your edits would be best. Desertborn (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertborn: Thank you for the suggestion. I will do that! --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 15:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! One thing that really helped me when I first started was carefully reading all the items on Simple start. You may find it useful to pause and carefully read through those. One other thing that helps me is to try and think each change over carefully before I press the publish button. I work up the change, but before pressing the button I think it over again. Does it match policy? Is it useful? Sometimes I then cancel the change instead of making it. A little time to think it over to confirm is always good. I thought I would share in case you would find that method helpful as well. Desertborn (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism with AI[change source]

If you want some practice at how to revert, warn, and report with vandalism, I recommend using RC with the "Hide probably good edits" option. That way your odds of finding a constructive edit aren'tvery high, and if you do find one, we can always put it back. This'll help you avoid duplicate warnings and such and maybe if you get better at identifying vandalism you can look at all the edits to see what the filter missed.

Hope this helps you :) Computer Fizz (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer Fizz: - I use the May be bad, Likely bad, and Very likely bad options checked. This may have a problem. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 16:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't haev that option checked, those options won't do anything as recent changes will show every single edit made during thattime. You gotta checkt hat box. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer Fizz: You okay? You have many typos. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 16:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a problem withmy spacebar. I try tokeep it outofarticles, but I don't really careon talkpages. Is it bothering you? Computer Fizz (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer Fizz: No, I thought you had a health problem suddenly. I was checking on you and making sure you are good. I care for everyone :) --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 16:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block tags[change source]

Hi there Wyatt. Please stop adding block tags to the talk pages of blocked accounts. There is likely a reason a sysop hadn't left a tag on the page. Hiàn (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiàn: Okay. I was trying to be helpful. Thanks for the warning. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 20:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[change source]

Hi Wyatt2049, thank you for taking the effort to learn. However, I would like to request a few things that you should cut down on.

Please stop giving barnstars to editors over something that the are doing/did.
Please stop "thanking" editors over small things that the are doing/did.

Thank you. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@大诺史: So it is wrong to show appreciation? You really deserved all of those. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 14:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other editors, but please keep me out of it. Thank you and happy editing :) 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do! --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 15:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with User:大诺史. If you give a lot of barnstars, especially for things that aren't that special, the barnstars lose their value. It can also look like you're trying to curry favor, which people may not respect you for. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of User:Wyatt2049/WelcomeIcon[change source]

The page you wrote, User:Wyatt2049/WelcomeIcon, has been selected for quick deletion for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the specific reasons. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 15:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Vipreported[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Vipreported, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Template:Vipreported and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Hurricane Center[change source]

Thank you for your work on this article. Be aware that some of the things you added needed to be changed. You can look at the change I just made for details, but here are a couple of specific notes:

Please do not include crosswiki links (links to articles in other Wikipedias) in articles. Even if we don't have an article for a subject, just leave the link red.
This wiki uses some different section heading names than enwiki. Instead of "See also", we use "Related pages". Instead of "External links", we use "Other websites".

If you'd like more information about other ways that Simple English Wikipedia is different, you can see this list that I maintain. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing only warnings to IP addresses[change source]

Per policy, IP addresses can't be issued only warnings, only accounts. A lot of stuff with IPs is different because you can't know they are the same person. The IP address you gave a warning to (216.248.239.160) has only made one edit here which you issued an only warning for. With ip's, the highest you can go is a level 2. (Note: If they continue vandalizing after that, you may go to a 3,4,then report). But an only warning just instantly isn't okay like that, even if it's obscene disgusting stuff. I know, it's not a very good policy, but I didn't make it.

Let me know if you have any questions about warnings in the future :) Computer Fizz (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also isn't policy.... You can issue single notice warnings to IPs if it is really bad. Levels on warnings are just about the strength of the wording. You don't have to give all the levels, and you don't have to start on a specific level. Though some admins prefer to see more warnings. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: You may be right about "Though some admins prefer to see more warnings." because IIRC i tried to issue an only warning to an ip address but auntof6 told me it was wrong. it does seem to be a recurring issue, with certain policies that every single editor will tell you something different. It'd probably be best to only cite project pages for this stuff. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: @Computer Fizz: That one IP was the same as another. And it was to policy per Djsasso. It was super discusting.--Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 17:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer Fizz: Yeah Auntof6 is one who likes to see a million warnings. I think she was the one who started the trend of admins asking to see many warnings. We used to have a lot more blocks with only a single warning or no warnings as vandalism only. This is the type of thing that is left to admin discretion if they wish to block or not so you won't always have admins require many warnings. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome templates[change source]

Hi there Wyatt. I've noticed that you've been welcoming quite a few named editors. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with it, but please keep in mind:

You're supposed to substitute the template - use {{subst:welcome}} instead of {{welcome}}.
It's preferable that you don't welcome users with no contributions, as they're likely to never edit here and it's generally a waste of server space.

Please keep this in mind going forward. Hiàn (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[change source]

By your vandalism while logged out, you have broken the trust of myself and the other editors who tried to help you become a helpful contributor here. You vandalized with 204.78.76.16, which you admitted to being your IP here. I regret accepting your initial unblock request, and I will not consider any future ones. Vermont (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) I'd also like to know why you reverted your own vandalism. Computer Fizz (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my message above, I might support an unblock in a year or more, hopefully at which point you'd be older (judging from the fact its a school IP you used) and more responsible. Vermont (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer Fizz: Because I wanted to prove myself capable of reverting vandalism. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 08:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so are you here to build an encyclopedia or to get a shiny mop? Computer Fizz (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer Fizz: I am here to help do hurricane and weather related content, as you can see with my contributions of Storm, Flood, and Subtropical cyclone. I also do want to get the shiny mop one day. And I made 400 edits, and I did not get rollback rights. That does not make since. I thought if I undid severe vandalism, I would get that right. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 15:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, rollback is not automatically granted at 400 edits. Rights are not rewards for edit count. Permissions are granted based on need, experience, and trust. Vermont (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I should point out that talk pages while you are blocked are only for requesting unblock. Any more chatting and talk page access will be turned off as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: I did vandalism because I wanted to revert it to get better at Wikipedia and get rollback rights. I also wanted to see the IP get caught. And one more thing, how did you do it? --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 08:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been made public how he did it, but for some reason i kinda want to not tell you. Especially since you promised you'd never do it again and then look. it's almost impossible to trust you now. Computer Fizz (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: And one last thing-This may sound weird, but I would like to thank you for blocking me. I was on there a little (more like way) too much. I needed to take a break and learn to not have to be on here every second. And now I might be able to do that. Once I am less obsessed with this, I will come back and request an unblock, which will be in a while, most likely in several months to a year. By then, I will hopefully be more responsible. Again, thanks. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 08:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: @Djsasso: @Computer Fizz: - Just one more thing before I go for a year at least. Do all of you forgive me for my actions? I really would like to know if you do. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 18:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Do you forgive me for my actions? --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 20:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont:

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wyatt2049 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

I have made some mistakes lately, and I am rethinking my decisions and my actions. I do regret what I have done, and I want to get back to editing because I really love computers and working with these things. I am asking for a limited unblock to prove myself worthy of being unblocked permanently. Thanks for any considerations. Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 14:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Once I am less obsessed with this, I will come back and request an unblock, which will be in a while, most likely in several months to a year. By then, I will hopefully be more responsible." Vermont (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]