User talk:DootSkull

DootSkull is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I am currently offline, make sure that I am contacted at 1 PM -9 PM UTC on March 26, 2025.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, DootSkull, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Introduction and Getting started
Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. ~~~ D o o t e d . (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Different varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Homebuilt computer, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. D o o t e d . (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, DootSkull, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! D o o t e d . (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning users

Not sure what you were thinking at User talk:92.5.101.196. I was warning that user for introducing deliberate errors to an article a week ago, and they haven't edited since. There's no reason for you to immediately give them a further, second warning for the same article.

See WP:WARNVAND for details on how Wikipedia's warning system works. Belbury (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

160.178.225.126 (talk · contribs) is also free to blank their own talk page if they wish, under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You restored the deleted comments and gave them a warning for vandalism. I'd recommend holding off on using warning templates if you're not familiar with how Wikipedia works. --Belbury (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I really know how to use wikipedia.

I also read that page.

~~~ D o o t e d . (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPUNISH exists for a reason. D o o t e d . (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I was not aware that they were disruptive.

Decline reason:

In that case, WP:CIR applies and we'll need to leave you blocked to protect the project. Yamla (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Blocker gave no warnings to warrant a hard-block.

Decline reason:

There are significant concerns regarding your current ability to edit Wikipedia in a productive way that doesn't cause disruption to the project. Not everyone who wants to contribute has the required skills. It would be best to wait some time, whether it be a few months or years, before you try again. Being useful and editing constructively on a on a sister project is a good start if you would like to return here in the future. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 17 November 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Not enough warnings to warrant hard-block. D o o t e d . (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no requirement for a certain number of warnings or any warnings at all, depending on the situation. You were disruptive and the block is necessary to prevent it, especially since you are seemingly unable to tell us how you were disruptive. I suggest you stop talking about process and start talking about your disruptive actions, and what you will do differently. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2023 (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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I fully regret my actions and disruptive editing, and smallcat101 and sillyboi689 are impulsively made sockpuppets. I fully understand if this gets declined, as protecting the project should be done.

Decline reason:

See below. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2024 (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.

D o o t e d . (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC) PS: please mention me if this gets accepted or delined.[reply]

Ponyo, NinjaRobotPirate, Yamla (the log explains why I pinged not just Ponyo)--I found this unblock request somewhate persuasive, even though User:SillyBoi689 was not yet six months ago. Indeed, I approve of Sillyboi's edits. I was ready to either accept this or say "come back in a month and I'll champion your cause"--and then I ran CU, and found what you, Ponyo, I think found too? Logged-out editing. Again, they were not vandalism edits, but I started writing this sentence in a different frame of mind than I find I have now. DootSkull, I can not accept this request with such recent evidence of socking. WP:OFFER suggests six months and while that's somewhat flexible, it's not that flexible. Make up your mind whether you want to play on this site or not, and if that is answered affirmatively, stick to it. OK? Drmies (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look through the logs (but did not run CU myself). I think Drmies's decline was appropriate. DootSkull, note that you are very close to a community ban (WP:CBAN) rather than just a block. This is almost certainly your last chance to take a different approach and show, going forward, you are willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do infact promise to abide by the policies. You got dooted by MrDoot Doot. 16:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that I would like the users sillyboi and sand smallcat to be deleted. I fully promise to not abuse sockpuppetry. You got honked by MrHonk Honk. 16:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, I will come back when OFFER applies. You got dooted by MrDoot Doot. 13:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies,@Yamla, I want to know if talk page edits count as edits that reset the standard offer counter. You got dooted by MrDoot Doot. 00:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We expect zero edits from you, including to this talk page, for at least six months. --Yamla (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this account is still blocked it Works for me.

Standard Offer Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

The discussion above as well as the standard offer.

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for the standard offer. You either knew that and decided to waste our time with this unblock request regardless, or you lack sufficient competence to understand what you are told. Optimistically, I'm going to take the approach you are deliberately wasting our time. So, let me be clear. You are now not eligible for a standard offer unblock request until 2025-03-30, or six months after your most recent edit (including to this page), whichever comes later. Consider yourself exceptionally lucky that you are being let off this lightly. Yamla (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2024 (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.