User talk:No names left!! abcd

After trying about 30 names, I am pooped. Most of the names rejected were claimed to be similar to existing names but not really. Some names that I tried were judged to be promotional but from it. One was Bongo Drums but that is not promotional.

Username change

If you would like to have your username changed to "Bongo Drums", you can make a request at the username change page. Conifer (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of airports in the Vatican

The article List of airports in the Vatican has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If there are no items on the list, as is the case here, we don't need a page on that list.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Everymorning (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Complaints, you may be blocked from editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of airports in the Vatican for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of airports in the Vatican 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/List of airports in the Vatican 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter. Since you had some involvement with the Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at User:No names left!! abcd, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. It's not appropriate nor constructive for you to create a userspace that is a total copy and paste of another Wikipedian - especially if that copy and paste contains badges that show permissions you don't possess. Including adminsitrator badges. Please stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not disruptive. I left a disclaimer saying I was working on the page. I was going to go through and remove the boxes that I didn't want, such as the ones you object. Please improve wikipedia by starting a page with all the boxes so people can see it in one place and choose. No names left!! abcd (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is quite disruptive. You have top-icons on your user page that indicate you have permissions (including an administrator top icon) you do not have. Start small, don't copy and paste a page so involved with graphics, and especially do not copy and paste the page of an administrator. Above all, stop editing disruptively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Do not perform edits that only administrators are to perform. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STOP HARASSING ME. I DID NOT VANDALIZE. YOU FALSELY ACCUSE ME. IF you are not a vandal, you would edit nicely, like I am adding facts, not harrass people. Please go away. No names left!! abcd (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Winkelvi. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard to this edit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an attack. And Winkevi is you so you are threatening to block because you don't like a good suggestion to you. Not good.

I have removed content from your user page, such as topicons denoting permissions that you do not have on Wikipedia, projects that you are not a member of, links to articles created pages you did not create, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Northamerica. As noted on that page, I did state that there are wrong user boxes and that it was a work in progress. I was slowly working on removing things that I didn't want but when you edit, the pictures and boxes are replaced by words and codes, making it much harder to decipher. Thank you for helping out. There are some others that I want to remove but will work on that in the near future. As far as articles that I didn't create, I did turn back the "article's created" to zero (but you removed that, too) No names left!! abcd (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports in the Vatican. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Warning is in regard to this edit this edit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are upset. Mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of. It is not an accusation because you, yourself, state it and even highlight the fact but posting a userbox mentioning that you have mental illness. Note that mental illness does not equal "crazy". No names left!! abcd (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology to the world

If I sound excited, I apologize to the world. It was only because of enthusiasm for Wikipedia.

Please do not attack me or try to pick on my edits. Be respect. Be thoughtful. Be considerate. Be mindful that Wikipedia depends on careful thoughts. I have committed no vandalism but fought for careful editing of paragraphs and careful finding of rare references.

No names left!! abcd (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choor monster (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of airports in the Vatican

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as List of airports in the Vatican, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for being a trolling-only account. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, not temporarily, but there's no sense wasting time on finding the correct template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Floq meant to use:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

John Carter (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange. It is as if you WANT me to get mad and vandalize Wikipedia, Flo. You accuse me of a trolling account only but look and you will find that I think very critically and bring very good points up and only good points.

For example, there was a broken template so I fixed it by creating a missing article (List of airports in Vatican City). The article before that, there was a big and laughable flaw in the President Jimmy Carter article where a totally unrelated thing, family member's pancreatic cancer, was inserted into a paragraph about his liver cancer.

Therefore, if Wikipedia improvement is a goal, you should engage in discussion not indefinite block. Even if you say nicely, "you need to tone it down and maybe don't edit Wikipedia for a short time" this would be productive. Your current way of action is very much a destructive act. In fact, it would be the perfect way to destroy Wikipedia (become an administrator then make people mad...Mad people will think of ways to do bad things).

Please reconsider. As a gesture of good faith, I will not even look at Wikipedia for a week so this is a sign of self block. Thank you.

FYI, Wikipedia does say Asperger's is autism. Under the autism article, it says in the first paragraph that it is one of the psychiatric diagnosis in the international classification. Who knows, Wikipedia is wrong? I don't think so.

No names left!! abcd (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you use the unblock template provided to make such a request. Here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why make such request? I have looked over other people's requests and it looks like making a request subjects the requester to further abuse and hostility. Why asked to be _____ again? (insert bad thing, like raped, punched, abused, etc.). If Wikipedia is not a hostile place, then an administrator will not make it indefinite. If a Wikipedia administrator has a secret agenda to damage Wikipedia, they will not do it and even make a rude comment. I am so surprised that Wikipedia administration is so hostile, calling people false names, like troll. Why don't you just call me a Communist, Republican, or child abuser?

The ball is in Wikipedia's court....be cruel or be normal. It is up to them (and you, reading this). No names left!! abcd (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not up to me at all of course. I am merely left thinking, what a curious character. And I'm not sure that it's as bad as being punched, though, and as for raped... bizarre. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c) Actually, at this point, I think it worth while noting that the user talk page of an indefinitely blocked or banned user is theoretically only to be used for requesting an unblock. And, yes, rationally, it is up to the person who is blocked to request an unblock. There have been at least a few people who are indefinitely blocked because they specifically requested being indefinitely blocked, generally because they were spending what they thought of as too much time here. No admin unblocks people on "general principles," but can only do so after a specific request to do so. Given that there seems to be to my eyes a bit of a incongruity between your previously indicating a much greater knowledge of policies and guidelines than we generally expect of newer editors, and the rather passive-aggressive and clearly judgmental nature of the claims above, the existing concerns about this account being a sockpuppet of a previously blocked or banned editor remain. So, honestly, if you continue to misuse/abuse this talk page to make comments which do not directly relate to the sole purpose a blocked editor is supposed to use the page for, at least during the time of the block, there is a not unreasonable chance that your access to your user talk page may be revoked as well. In any event, it is hard for me, as a non-admin, to imagine a more pointless and nonproductive comment than the one above. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To that, John, I do request unblock. However, I believe it is futile so why spend a whole lot of time trying to learn all the complicated templates when it is just not going to be granted. After all, Wikipedia administrators are very cruel as far as unblock. Reading the unblock page, I don't see a single successful request.

Official request: I request unblock. If done, I will behave. I guarantee that. So that you feel better, I request that the block remain for 24 hours then ended. No names left!! abcd (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way he equates communists, Republicans and child abusers together!!! Blimey...

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

not true.

"Official" unblock request has been declined. Your comments here give me no confidence that will will cease disruption. Chillum 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, I knew it would be denied. Hey, Chillum...Please unblock me. If so, I guarantee that I will be a good user and ask when there is a question. At the end of 30 days, I will seek your review or someone else's review. Have a heart. Not a heart of stone. I will show you that I respond to kindness well. No names left!! abcd (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be considering this issue further as I am sure you desire a fresh opinion. I recommend you use the unblock template: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to get further attention, anything less leaves you with the risk of being unnoticed. Chillum 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't desire a fresh opinion because I see that administrators very rarely go against another. Therefore, it is the duty of any administrator to do what is right when they see it and not let injustice go. However, I do appreciate your reply. I bet 99.998% chance that my request below will be denied. I'll offer something free on Craigslist if I am wrong. No names left!! abcd (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2015 (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).

No names left!! abcd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I am so sorry. I have taken the bait of bullies. I should have been smarter. If unblocked, it will show you are reasonable. In return, I will show you and will, after 30 days, check in with you to provide evidence that I have edited well. I brought to Wikipedia some great ideas. For example, the Jimmy Carter article is high profile. Someone wrote about his liver cancer but then put an unrelated statement that his family has quite a bit pancreatic cancer. This is loose association with no evidence of being related. I opined that pancreatic cancer should be a separate paragraph......... I also saw a template of List of Airports in Europe, which listed all the countries. I did not see a Vatican one, but I also saw a Monserrat one, a country with only one airport. This is valuable...... I was also followed and stalked by an administrator who reverted some really good editions. He reverted everything I did so it was just poorly thought out or plain mean. For example, there was a foundation trust article with no inkling of what country it was. I inserted this info. I did make the mistake of referring to Asperger's Syndrome as mental illness and for that I am sorry. It IS a mental illness per Wikipedia (Asperger's article lists it as an autism spectrum and autism article says in the first paragraph that it is in the classification of psychiatric disorders. That doesn't mean someone is crazy, as I stated.......... I also got a little mad when someone reported me to ANI but did not even tell me, which is a crime on their part. Now I am a bigger person and will not be egged on by others. In short, I am very sorry. I ask that my ban be reduced from permanent to a day. After that, I will edit no more than 1 edit per day for several days and report to you my good progress of thoughtful edits after 1 month. I promise not to be egged into a fight from now on. Please find it in your heart not to be cruel as many internet people are. Thank you. No names left!! abcd (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence confirms that you have abused multiple accounts. Mike V • Talk 00:10, 20 August 2015 (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.

You're not likely to get unblocked, but in reference to Carter, it has been reported that pancreas cancer runs in his family, and a quick check of Google indicates it can be inherited, i.e. it can run in families. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The report I heard on the radio said that in cases like his, with three relatives who have had it, his chances of getting it would be roughly 60% or so. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"List of airports in the Vatican" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of airports in the Vatican and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#List of airports in the Vatican until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]