User talk:Trollworkout

Welcome

Hello, Trollworkout, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Trollworkout, good luck, and have fun. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Reincarnation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want people to know I was not maliciously adding information on Wikipedia despite what it says above. As you can see they said it "appears" like vandalism but they never had any conclusive proof. They acted on a hunch which is terribly unprofessional. The simple explanation is this admin didn't know what I was talking about so it "appeared" like nonsense so they removed it instead of actually spending time to verify my knowledge or create a discussion ask me why or how I added what I added. Since they are admins it goes without saying their "incorrect" and "ignorant" opinion goes over mine thus I was left with this report for vandalism and hoaxing which I never did. Trollworkout (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Please consider changing your username. "Trollworkout" sounds like you're WP:NOTHERE. THanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really ask me to change my name because it contains troll in it? Dude troll is a fantasy creature and I like fantasy and folklore. I picked this username long before internet trolls were a thing. Wow man. Nowhere on no site have I ever been asked to change my user name because it has troll in it. This is a first! Incredible. The problem you have with my name is your issue not mine. End of story. Trollworkout (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your timeline is way off. Your account was created on 5 March 2016. Internet trolls have been so-called for many decades. It was possibly used as early as the 1980s, but for certain appeared in the OED in 1992.

If you don't want to change your name, that's your business, but you're the one who's going to have to deal with people's very natural reaction to it and their suspicion of your motives when a dispute arises. You certainly can't pretend you haven't been warned that it's problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said I picked this username not made this Wikipedia username. That is I use this username in other places as well. Please go away stop picking on me I am not a criminal or a troll. The only one trolling here is you asking me to change my name. I will not change my username. Trollworkout (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no I will not change sorry. This is your issue not mine. I will have to screenshot how low you guys can go with this is really incredible. To be asked to change my name because it has the word troll in it. Wikipedia is the encyclopdia of safe spaces only some people can edit eh? Imagine if I had may name as DonaldJTrump oh man you'd come to my door and beat me up. Hahahaha Please consider changing your name I do not consider it! Goodday sir. Also this is not an encyclopedia THIS IS A TRAVESTY run by immature unprofessional people. I came here to help out I quickly learned you guys are incredibly incredibly unprofessional bunch of people who dislike anyone helping out. We are done here. Trollworkout (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give it a rest, why don't you? Your righteous indignation is duly noted. Now, if you want to help, help, if you don't, don't, but don't read us the riot act because you picked a silly username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to like my user name. Is your problem you don't like my username not mine. I didn't pick a silly user name you're silly for picking on me for my username. I suggest you deal with it. Trollworkout (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The editors reverting you weren't Admins. At the AN page, Dennis Brown is, and I am. By the way, the word "unconstructive" is in the Oxford Dictionary which now has a free online version.[1] Doug Weller talk 13:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever reverted my changes did it from outside their account probably so they don't get caught as a revenge. Wikipedia should do an internal audit you guys got a lot of unresolved issues with your admins and power users. I will refuse to collaborate in such an environment. I decided to move on to other editable encyclopedias where my contributions are welcome or appreciated. Thanks but no thanks. Also unconstructive is a made up word that RECENTLY got added to the dictionary cause is being used so much. In English anything can be a word if it's meaningful for example word nonwise that I just made up is technically an English word but doesn't exist but in English any word can be made up and eventually ends up being used and added to the dictionary. Problem with Wikipedia is there are a bunch of nonenglish speaking users to edit English articles. You guys have huge issues on this website. While I will keep using this I will no longer donate and I will recommend it to everyone to let this website die and not donate. I am adding adblocker back and will no longer financially support this website in any way. You guys are turning away contributors and treating them like garbage. My time is not garbage. I spend time to add these articles in only for you to threat me like a criminal. NO thanks. Trollworkout (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how "unconstructive" was used in books and journals in the 19th century, your RECENTLY got added claim is a bit off the mark. TheValeyard (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep talking man maybe you will convince yourself you are right. Most contributors have been dwindling steadily since 2006. They all been driven away by stupid rules and power hungry admins. How many contributors do you really have? Like 500? Encyclopedia anyone can edit HA! More like Encyclopedia only 500 people can edit. If anyone can edit they are treated like PURE GARBAGE. I experienced it first hand. I thought was just me but I did some digging. You guys already know what's wrong you have an article on your own site: Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia. You see I have contributed on many other publicly editable sites and the process is a progressive one I add something someone else adds or corrects what I add and so forth. Let me tell you my experience here. Day 1 I make changes. Day 2 All my changes are reverted I am accused of being a hoaxer and a vandal and all the admins are trying to find reasons to boot me out. Why are you here? YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. You are here because you saw everyone gang up against me so you're looking for anything that proves I am a hoaxer or vandal. Sorry I am not. The issue is not me. The real issue is the admins on this site have been here too long and have become jaded power hungry and toxic and they think they have authority and won't let anyone else edit anymore. And to make matters worse they all appear to be left leaning biased against Trump for example or against conservatives. I noticed some severely biased articles going though since last election. Is only a matter of time until people will fork it to fix these issues. About 90% of admins and moderators must be booted out to make this site sane again. I would recommend an internal audit and fire/ban most admins here and get fresh blood. Fix your issues man. Clean your site. Then I will contribute again. I hate to waste my time on this site.

Also furthermore looking at the stats I notice a lot of males here with no children. About 90% of editors are male and about 80% of them have no children. They may simply use Wikipedia as "their baby" being overprotective and not allowing anyone else edit here. For example essjay the Theology professor who was in fact some highschool dropout who wanted to feel relevant. A lot of people here might be the abjects and rejects of society who come here to feel relevant to the world and being here long enough gain power and authority making up fake diplomas and degrees and claiming to be experts and controlling the flow and direction of this site. I would honestly get rid of ALL admins currently to be sure and start fresh with new admins who are accredited and verified before being given powers on this site. They need to be contactable and real people behind. These fake authorities on knowledge hide under anonymous usernames and prevent the people who are really knowledgeable from doing their job. ZERO funding for Wikipedia from me. I will not support some nerds that pretend to be fake professors and prevent me from editing. I am looking for a way to ban this site from appearing anywhere as well. I no longer have any faith after all I read about it. Trollworkout (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Are you aware that all the software this place runs on is free? You can set up your own Wiki, if you want to, and run it on your own rules. You can be the one and only admin if you want to. Loads of people run their own Wikis for various reasons. Some are quite popular. Also, if you want to block Wikipedia just go into your internet settings and block the site. You need never see it again. It is all up to you. Nobody is forcing you to come here and hate being here. If you don't like it then why not just stop and go and do something else that you do like instead? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses excuses. Wikipedia manipulates users by claiming to be something is really not. I was fooled. I think all people need to try and contribute to see how things really work under the hood. A lot of people use Wikipedia daily and many of them are manipulated in subtle ways by whoever approves the edits. Wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Is false advertisement. People use it because they buy into the lies Wikipedia sells. It pretends to be something is not. Also I don't care about is free nonsense. There is no excuse for lying deception and power mongering. As a contributor I expect my edits to be welcome and debated to be included in the discussion to participate. As a user I expect articles to be honest and informed. I don't care about free or how you guys make money or all that nonsense. Is not my problem. Figure your site out bro. Sure I can stop using it but it will still deceive others. Is the principle that I am bothered by not by me using it. Wikipedia lies to it's userbase. It pretends to be something is not edited by users who pretend to be authorities in something they are not. Trollworkout (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ezz Mahameed (June 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Iwaqarhashmi was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ezz Mahameed and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Waqar💬 16:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trollworkout! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Waqar💬 16:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]