User talk:Aspenheitz
03:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Aspenheitz, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Aspenheitz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Aspenheitz. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Arthur Germain, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Arthur Germain to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.
If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.
Thanks,
Lopifalko (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018[edit]
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Edappadi K. Palaniswami. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Do not put INDICSCRIPT in the lede or infobox Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Indic script[edit]
- Please do not add any Indic script, to any of our India related articles, as you did at Narendra Modi , as this contravenes WP:INDICSCRIPT - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Recent edits to Spaniards in the United Kingdom[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Spaniards in the United Kingdom, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Monde des Titounis[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Monde des Titounis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ComplexRational (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019[edit]
Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Purple People Eater, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please also see WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
June 2019[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Baloch people, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hindi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ML 911 16:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop[edit]
Stop placing stub tags on articles. You clearly cannot discern what a WP:STUB is, and you are placing the tags in the wrong place. If you do this again, you will be reported to administrators and blocked from editing.
If you want to contribute to an article by adding relevant, cited information from independent reliable sources, do so. Stop tagging. Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
ANI[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Block[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 06:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have been consistently wrong in tagging articles as stubs, that are clearly start class articles or better. This is disruptive because it demoralizes good faith new editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
{
Aspenheitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience I caused with the stub article incident. I am a relatively new editor at Wikipedia, and have been unfamiliar with the differences between stubs and start class articles, and the appropriate location for stubs; likewise I have been under the false premise that the stub tag was meant for all shorter articles with not enough information. I have not been well versed in Wikipedia's policies, also including those regarding uncited edits and those that led to other previous mishaps, especially those on foreign Wikipedia pages. I propose to educate myself in Wikipedia's editing policies and rather than placing stub tags and uncited information, instead adding relevant, cited information instead; and making further improvements to articles that follow Wikipedia's policies and are desired by Wikipedia's community. I joined Wikipedia to improve articles that need help, and had no intentions for any wrongdoing. Aspenheitz (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Er, no-- educate yourself; then apply for unblock. You will need to demonstrate proficiency in all the areas you have been warned about so often. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
- Comment: Aspenheitz, you received six warnings on this talkpage about adding uncited content to articles, and yet you continued to do so. The past few dozens of stub tags you placed on articles were reverted (which you saw), and you also received a talkpage warning that if you continued placing these you would be blocked, but you deliberately did so again after the warning. Likewise, on French Wikipedia you were warned three times on your talkpage not to use automatic translations, and at least 16 of your articles were deleted, but you continued to defy those requests and warnings as well. It is clear by this point, given your very deliberate and extremely repeated defiance of warnings and policies, that you have no interest in constructively editing on Wikipedia projects and that by and large your sole and observable purpose is disruption. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Aspenheitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that there are doubts about my sincerity to edit in good faith. I haven't really checked my talk page recently until my indefinite block. The incident regarding French Wikipedia stems from using the translation tool to translate articles, and I have not looked at my talk page on French Wikipedia as I do not understand French. In order to demonstrate my intent to edit in good faith and my review of policies, may I suggest that I propose improvements to articles prior to being unblocked, or in what ways can I demonstrate proficiency in all areas that I have been often warned about prior to being unblocked? Aspenheitz (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
- It's not credible that over the course of eight months you did not check the 10 different messages on your talkpage, because you get a big orange and purple notification for each one of them that doesn't go away until you check them. Likewise, on French Wikipedia, it is not credible that over the course of four months you did not see or check the 23 messages on your talkpage, because you get a big orange and purple message for each one of them that does not go away until you check them. Likewise, it is not credible that you did not notice the 33 reverts I made of your stub tags 2.5 days ago, because you get a big red notification of each of them that does not go away until you check them. You are also being deceptive when you say "I have not looked at my talk page on French Wikipedia as I do not understand French", because you somehow were able to manage perfectly well editing there, making 27 edits including in French: [1], [2], [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Aspenheitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I joined Wikipedia because it is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that I wanted to provide the world with more information and learning. Wikipedia is a place that provides information written by users themselves with intent to provide learning to the whole world, and no other online encyclopedia can do that, and I would not like this opportunity to go to waste. It really breaks my heart that I am being thought of as a bad person and that I have not been given a true opportunity to prove that I am not. I am currently taking a course that Wikipedia provided called "The Wikipedia Adventure" to learn about how to properly edit so I won't make the same mistakes in the future, and I can't progress further in the course with the block. I did not think the notification boxes were important until a couple of days ago when I was blocked, and before, I simply ignored them. I truly do not speak French, I used Google Translate in conjunction with the translation tool to make those edits months ago. I promise that I had no intent to disrupt Wikipedia, and I have only been on Wikipedia for a few months, so why would you expect that I had any intentions to be disruptive albeit that I only intended to expand information, and not get rid of? I'm not a bad person, and I feel like I have been treated unfairly with the block because I do not have the opportunity to prove my good faith and intents, and I understand that other users that have been indefinitely banned for worse violations have been given the opportunity to prove good intent and competence in Wikipedia. Aspenheitz (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your account has been globally locked. You need to appeal this to the Stewards. Once you do that, we can discuss unblocking your English Wikipedia account, but there's nothing we can do about it until then. We lack the technical ability to undo global locks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
Unblock discussion[edit]
Oh, good grief. You have had many, many opportunities and have squandered them all. I do not question your sincerity, but competence is required. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can (potentially) edit. It is not necessarily the encyclopedia everyone should edit. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
How may I demonstrate competence to edit, if I have not been aware of such opportunities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- This seems fairly clearly to be a returning troll or LTA, who knows exactly how to disrupt and exactly how to make claims of innocence and ill-treatment. I propose that someone either do a CU on him and/or remove TP access. Enough of the trollery -- these bogus unblock requests and protestations are disruptive in themselves. Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- You verbalize what you did wrong and what you would do instead. Is there an echo in here? Did I not already write this?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia,
My name is Mrs. G, and I am Aspenheitz's 6th Grade Language Arts Teacher at a Montessori school. As we have moved to the Autumn Semester, I am not requesting an unblock, but merely sending my sincerest apologies. In Maria Montessori's words, “The environment must be rich in motives which lend interest to activity and invite the child to conduct his own experiences.”, so as part of our curriculum, we are creating a new environment for our students that is in line with Maria Montessori's philosophy. By doing that, we will be implementing the Dashboard system. Due to FERPA regulations (USA), I am not permitted to discuss the location of my profession or my student in depth, nor am I permitted to discuss other students that do not pertain to this matter. Aspenheitz was part of my 6th Grade language arts class at our middle school, and we recently implemented in our curriculum over a year ago the process of formulating and editing Wikipedia articles and we are still having hiccups along the way, as this is still an experimental aspect of our curriculum. Maria Montessori, an educator that formed the very basis of our curriculum advocated learning at the student's own pace, and we as a department thought that open ended editing would be an important aspect of our Montessori curriculum. Previously I have had students create individual accounts, and share the account logins with myself. When my student ran into this problem, our department did not know how to correctly monitor students' accounts. As we are moving into the new semester, I would like to reiterate that I teach at a Montessori school, and not a university or a mainstream school, thus our 6th Grade curriculum may differ from other schools. My colleagues, along with our IT staff, are in the process of implementing the Dashboard system for 6th Grade students, and creating new accounts for students under this system, in addition for creating accounts for teachers that will most likely be used for creating teachers' blackboard accounts, such as mine that was created over a couple of weeks ago.
I would like to discuss my student, but can only say so much due to FERPA regulations, but I will say what I can. My student is gifted indeed, and is a student that makes an impact around the school. He is a bundle of joy and his joy is contagious, affecting not only his peers but his other teachers in addition. He would never hurt anyone, not even a fly. I have never had such an energetic and compassionate student that he is. As he is still a tween, he may run into issues, but this is mainly a part of his development. Overall as an instructor, I would like to say that my student would never hurt nor disrupt Wikipedia or any of Wikipedia's respective editors, and that he has a very bright future ahead of him. On the behalf of my student, his peers, and the staff, I would like to apologize for everything that he has done wrong. Please keep in mind that he is an 11 or 12 year old, and he may not be well versed in Wikipedia's rules in regulations. Assuming that those in this discussion other than my student are adults, please be lighter on him. I can't wait to see his big future ahead of him!
As a teacher, I tell my class to refrain from name calling, and names such as "troll" by Soft Lavender are not appropriate, and could result in a call home. What Soft Lavender has done by provoking my student and encouraging admins to block him, is worse, and I would give my students detention in the principal's office, as well as a disciplinary referral to their respective parents. I would like to respectfully tell Soft Lavender that you are not an admin and you have no place in encouraging adults to delete a child's account, which is unethical on so many levels. When you're account was created, my student wasn't even born yet, so I encourage you and the Wikipedia community to treat him like he is your own student, and to help him when he does wrong, as you, Soft Lavender are a professional editor with degrees from Duke University in English and History, and you have edited in a variety of different fields that can help enrich learning, as Wikipedia is free, unlike other online resources. Next time, if you notice one of my students is doing something wrong, please use your skills to help them so my students can seek knowledge.
To quote from Maria Montessori, "“Our care of the child should be governed, not by the desire to make him learn things, but by the endeavor always to keep burning within him that light which is called intelligence.”
Sincerely, Mrs. G
Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)