Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 01:07, Friday, April 19, 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Liphradicus, I just wanted to let you know that I moved your question to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, rather than Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions; the talk page is usually a better place for asking "meta-questions" like that, though the questions page was not an unreasonable choice, either. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LiphradicusEpicus. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Anon126 (talk - contribs) 01:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

I closed the thread at the teahouse because the conversation was heading off in a direction that I felt was inappropriate for that board. The "747" remark would be inappropriate anywhere in wikipedia (unless you're editing the article, of course). If you want to argue the merits of creationism, talk.origins would welcome you with open arms. Here, on the other hand, those kind of comments are seen as advocacy, and wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for that kind of activity. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it would appear I assumed you were slightly more experienced than you actually are. Firstly we don't move pages by copying and pasting but rather by using the page move function. The main reason for this is a legal one to do with the license we use and the fact that edits require attribution - see Wikipedia:Copy-paste for more on this. Secondly we work on consensus at wikipedia and when a move, such as this one, is likely to be contentious we find a consensus first through the requested move process. These normally run for 7 days before an uninvolved editor determines consensus - in a contentious case such as this it would normally by left to either an experienced editor or an admin. If they determine that there is consensus for a move then the move will take place. A quick glance at the discussion shows me that the consensus is not clear and so this move will have to wait on a proper closure of the RM discussion. Although the consensus may appear clear to you as someone involved in that discussion you are unable, at least from a wikipedia point of view, to make that decision. As the normal 7 days are up someone may close the discussion at any time although if you want to try to speed up the process a neutrally worded request (i.e. "this requested move needs closing" and pretty much nothing else) at WP:AN/RFC may attract an admin or experienced editor to close quicker. Although an admin myself I don't think I would be the best person to close as I have been quite active in this general area in an admin capacity and, although such does not preclude me from closing, a close by someone else is more likely to be acceptable to all. Dpmuk (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and finally we require your signature to have a link to either your user page or your talk page in it, essentially to make communicating with you easier - see WP:SIGLINK for more on this. Dpmuk (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this discussion which tries to bring some order to numerous articles and redirects that pertain to this topic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brookings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this discussion about your recent edits. Seryo93 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC) UPD:Withdrew my noticeboard request. Seryo93 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be ok with swapping the "accession" and "annexation" parts of the opening paragraph to make the title agree with the opening paragraph. Regardless of what you think of the matter the title and opening paragraph should agree with each other. Bluefist ^talk 21:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, here's a request: could you please change your custom signature to something that contains a link to your user and/or user talk page, and that makes it clearer what your actual account name is? Your contributions are a bit difficult to track otherwise. Please see WP:SIGLINK for guidance. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is your computer not working properly? My username in all of my signatures can be clicked and links to my User page from there my Talk page is one click away... მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

Sorry if that seemed curt. I can't really change my signature to include my talk page and my user page at the same time, due to the length of the coding needed to make said signature. The username is "LiphradicusEpicus" and the four other characters happen to be my real name in Georgian if put together, ha ha! I like having the black, gold, and silver as well as they really stand out...and I like to be bold! Ha ha! Anyway, thank you very much for your help and support regarding the article so fiercely debated. Best, again sorry if I seemed rude at first (P.S.: the only solution I see to the signature would be manually adding talk-page coding to the end of each of my posts <_>)! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend adding a talk page link to your username as well. Many users arbitrarily make one portion of their username linked to their user page and another linked to their talk page; both links are important, and the coding shouldn't be too difficult to figure out, especially if you use the signature policy page provided by Future Perfect at Sunrise above. Other users would find it intuitive if you simply make the silver portion "Epicus" link to your talk page. Neelix (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt,

I like the suggestion you made here to create a new article about marijuana that would serve as a subarticle of Cannabis (drug) in the same way that Hashish and Kief do. Do you intend to follow through on this suggestion and create the article?

Neelix (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do plan to make it into an article, I've just been a bit busy, haha. Thanks for reminding me. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shell shock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you at Marijuana. Do not edit war during an RFC, I had reverted Neelix and he understood enough to start an RFC to develop consensus, which is how we settle disagreements via WP:BRD. Also, consider this a formal and final warning: Do not modify/refactor my comments at Talk:Marijuana or at any other place. That is flatly against policy and will get you blocked. You striking them makes it look as if I had withdrawn my complaint, which is clearly not the case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize how new you were until I looked, and I might have biten your head off a bit more gentle earlier. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It's ok, I completely understand, most new users make the same assumptions, but it is helpful if you learn a little so you don't get disappointed. WP:CONSENSUS is a good read. This explains how you can have a discussion and have 10 people vote "yes" and 3 people vote "no", and yet "no" gets consensus. It isn't a vote, Wikipedia isn't a WP:DEMOCRACY, the number of votes one way or another don't always mean how it ends up. Often it does, but not always. What matters most is the policy based rationales in the reasons. Counting the votes and such, not recommended at all. For starters, it looks argumentative, and second, it is meaningless. Whoever closes it (likely an admin) will use the guidance in policy and in the link I provided, weighed against the community consensus as a whole (ie: what policy says we should do and have done for years) and summarize it. It's a lot more complicated, but suffice it to say it is much more than just the votes at that one discussion that matter. If it seems confusing, I understand. It typically takes a year or two to get a full grasp of the basics. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To reiterate what I said in the discussion, I always knew it was Neelix that started the RFC. It was a bad RFC (for a few reasons), and him being an admin, I'm not inclined to pull my punches. I never thought for an instant it was you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cannabis afghanica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afghanica Cannabis sativa subsp. indica 'Skunk 1' × Cannabis sativa 'Afghani 1', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hybridization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LiphradicusEpicus. I notice you joined the cannabis portal in April this year. This wiki was started at the beginning of 2014 and deals specifically with all things cannabis. I don't like the idea of fishing here but we could really use a few experienced editors who are familiar with wiki markup, which I'm sure you are. Please check it out and if you are keen sign up. Thanks and happy editing. Robvanvee 09:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on HoodyBaby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.youngmoneyhq.com/artists/hoodybaby/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. reddogsix (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Cannabis afghanica". Since you had some involvement with the "Cannabis afghanica" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/ˈko̞r.ɑʃ ɑˈleˌɑn.ˈlʊesˈni.ˌɛeθ/

/ˈko̞r.ɑʃ ɑˈleˌɑn.ˈdlʊes.ˌɛeθ/

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tim Pool; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LiphradicusEpicus reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior appeals have been deleted due to administative users User:Jpgordon's blatant violation of both NPOV policies and WP:AN3[edit]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

User:EdJohnston makes claim that I violated our Personal attacks policy whilst reporting a disruptive user. My objection is on the basis of denotative fact. "Abusive" is defined as "harsh and insulting"; which the reported user clearly was (all it takes is a simple look at User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof and at Talk:Tim Pool; "narcissistic" is defined as "extremely self-centered with an exaggerated sense of self-importance : marked by or characteristic of excessive admiration of or infatuation with oneself"—you can also see examples of this on the page for Tim Pool's edit history and on the Talk page as well. The User:NorthBySouthBaranof has violated multiple policies and it is OBJECTIVELY due to their LITERAL abuse and display of narcissism. The person keeps continually calling me a "sockpuppet" and a "meatpuppet" and that is extremely rude. This is NOT stated as an insult but rather an objective, verifiable statement of fact. For future reference, how should behavior that is toxic, harmful, and selfish be categorized when filing reports so that this mishap will not happen to me again? I should point out that I was not hounding, no threats were issued—physical or perceived legal, there was no posting of personal information, nor any private correspondence off-site, nor any user-space harassment მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 16:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Repeating personal attacks when you are blocked for personal attacks is not a winning strategy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:27, 12 March 2021 (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.

The aforementioned response has been archived here for viewing ease and evidence: "unblock reviewed|decline=Repeating personal attacks when you are blocked for personal attacks is not a winning strategy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)". Response violates NPOV—author clearly did not read my request at all, simply parrotting another user. Response violates WP:AN3—lying and saying that something is a personal attack whenever it is not and is instead simple objective fact is in-and-of-itself a personal attack by the administrative user to the reviewëe. Overall, administrative user directly insults my intelligence and integrity.[reply]

"Upgrading to indef, repeating the accusation of "narcissism" in the prior unblock request is indeed a personal attack. Jpgordon's decline was appropriate on that basis, and the accusation that they are now engaging in personal attacks against you appears to be unfounded. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)" Response is another personal attack. Do the administrators not understand that YOU ACCUSING ME OF PERSONALLY ATTACKING SOMEONE WHENEVER I CLEARLY STATE AND PROVE THAT I AM USING MY CHOICE OF WORDS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DICTIONARY-SENSES IS IN AND OF ITSELF YOU, THE ADMIN, ATTACKING ME, THE PERSON FILING A COMPLAINT AGAINST ANOTHER USER VIOLATING THE VERY SAME POLICIES YOU CLAIM TO UPHOLD?!?!?[reply]

Unblock Appeal & Notice Taken of Abusive Administrator[edit]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Administrative abuse. Just about every single thing these administrators has said goes against information found in our blocking policy. I suppose we can take this to legal if you insist, or perhaps Jimmy himself would like to know about how his administrative team has been corrupt and lies about users and policies, ignores what the dictionary definition of words is while claiming to be "editors", and does nothing to defend users under attack from both admins and vandals. I'm done playing your stupid games. I do not care how long you block me for—VPN's exist and if I so choose, I can easily go make another Wikipedia account. This currently is a matter of principle. You do not get to claim someone is making a personal attack WHENEVER THEY ARE REPORTING SOMEONE. BY THE VERY MEANING OF WORDS, IT COULD BE CONSTRUED THAT THE ACT OF REPORTING A USER IS AN "ATTACK". You will never change my opinion regarding objective facts and you will not call into question my integrity because of your bleeding-heart mentalities. I can prove objectively that what I said was true and was stated as fact and not ad hominem yet I can also prove that administrators are violating policies and protocol with regards to myself. You are administrators of Wikipedia, not gods: act like it. I will be making a list of every administrative user who has abused me during this situation and I will be making sure that the appropriate avenues are gone through in order to ensure that you never treat another user this way. Almost all of the administrative staff is great, I have been on this site for many many years—but let's not have a few bad apples ruin the bunch. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I could easily decline your unblock as an equally abusive reiteration of the last one. But promising to sock, and then making a legal threat took it to a whole new level ... the one where there's pretty much no arguing against not only declining the unblock, but revoking your talk page access, as noted below (Hey, you yourself noted you were "done playing [our] stupid games" ... now there's something we can all agree on!) You may continue this little show at UTRS if you like. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2021 (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.

Bruh, you are going to have your talkpage access revoked. Calm down, take a step back, have a cup of coffee, and think about what you're saying for a few minutes. I hold no ill will against you and I'd like to see you become a productive editor again. But this is just going to take you down a road of no return. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment is appreciated but I've been dealing with a few corrupt administrators for years-on-end now. Administrators who launch personal attacks in their responses, administrators who violate blocking policies, administrators who use punative measures for their own seeming amusement, and it's extremely infuriating and I generally seek to resolve these issues but whenever there are individuals who quite literally refuse to even read that situation, it is a corruption-issue. I make few yearly contributions to Wikipedia and this type of situation is one of the main reasons that I do not devote more time to editing here. My intent was not to insult you in the report I made but to adequately portray how I perceived your actions using the most accurate denotative (dictionary definition) descriptors available. Being attacked by an admin. (multiple times now) over supposed insults that simply are not that is an extreme problem. There's even a policy explicitly stating that administrators need to err on the side of caution, not use punative measures, and discuss anything of note that is in question with other administrators. It is evident that the 3 admins who have currently reviewed the situation are only seeking to exacerbate the problem. It is a real pain in the rear end to get administrators reviewed for their misconduct as well, which is why I try my best to not resort to it. This just happens to "take the cake" as the saying goes. Oh and just to further clarify (since apparently administrators choose to not read the 3 other times I have explained this), I have no personal ill feelings towards you. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]