User talk:Theyoungeditor123
Nomination of Renaldi Gondosubroto for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Renaldi Gondosubroto is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renaldi Gondosubroto until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 01:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are nominating to delete my page because of sources, as the sources are already clearly on the page. Please check carefully again, as there are already three reliable sources on the page. -Theyoungeditor123
Theyoungeditor123, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Theyoungeditor123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theyoungeditor123, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theyoungeditor123. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC) |
Theyoungeditor123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Still learning about the rules of wikipedia, not sure about what's what yet. I won't repeat it again. Theyoungeditor123 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you really saw nothing wrong with pretending to be multiple people participating in the same discussion in an attempt to give the false impression of widespread support for your position, this isn't the project for you. Huon (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2017 (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.
Theyoungeditor123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that what I did was wrong, and I will not repeat it again. Like everyone else in Wikipedia, I want to help contribute to help boost this encyclopedia to it's full potential, and I believe that at times, we may have our ups and downs. The previous admin who declined my request to be unblocked had a point with my ignorance, but I believe our community is made for second chances, and I will gladly accept that second chance should the administrators be willing to give it to me. Should I mess up with that second chance again, I will gladly accept the following consequences that will be put in place for a permanent ban or the sort. If the admin still believes that I should not receive a second chance, then let it be too. Theyoungeditor123 (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
First, you say you don't understand what you did wrong. Then, a few hours later, you say you do understand. This is not convincing. You need to explain it to us so we can be sure. Yamla (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2017 (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.
Theyoungeditor123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you to the previous admin for reviewing my unblock reason. Yes, I stated that I understood what I did was wrong although previously I did not because the first admin who reviewed my case cleared that up for me by explaining the concept behind it (saying to give false impression of widespread support for my position, thus opening my mind even more to that), and what I meant by saying I didn't know what's what yet was that I have not yet reviewed the sockpuppetry article yet. Just thinking ahead of future questions that admin reviewing might have by my statement, yes, I have now clearly understood the weight of such an action and it's not that I feel right about it, its that I regret it and wish to reverse it, so I do not feel inclined to make actions like that just because I have not read the article. I was not thinking the impact it could bring, so I am glad that the actions were reversed. I have also read the full article on sockpuppetry, and I am ready to move on with this into devoting my time into really making Wikipedia a great place for everyone. I understand what I did was self-righteous at the beginning through the admins' explanation, but these events have shown me a new light on how I should be going through with this. For that I thank the admins who have placed the ban and wish to get unblocked so that I can make up for the actions that I did through helping out with different articles once more. Theyoungeditor123 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sockpuppuetry is a really serious no-no around here. The circumstances are such that I seriously doubt there will be any support for an immediate unblock. If you really want to come back and contribute I propose that you wait six months. Then come back and post a request for unblock per WP:STANDARDOFFER. Include a clear statement that you understand what you did was wrong, that you regret it and give us an indication of what areas you want to work in. And make very sure you don't attempt any kind of block evasion in the meantime. If you do all this, I think you would have a reasonable chance of having your block lifted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (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.