User talk:S536870912

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, S536870912. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your friendly greeting! @Viriditas: –S536870912 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Groundhog Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annual. 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) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of features removed in Windows 8, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First of all, sorry for my late response to your message. Thank you for this note. I hope that it will help me. ——S536870912 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Features new to Windows Vista[edit]

Hi.

How do you do? I reviewed your contribution to Features new to Windows Vista and saw that you added a sentence that didn't have any meaning. Perhaps if you tell me what you meant, I can help you clarify.

Also, please make sure you have studied WP:REPEATLINK guideline.

(You can respond here. I will see and come along.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lisa. What I meant is: If the computer does not lose power during a hybrid hibernation, it can keep it's information inside of the Random access memory. So there is a RAM-image on the HDD and in the RAM. If the power supply cuts off, it will be unable to keep it's RAM-Image inside of the RAM, because it's a volatile memory. So the computer's only possibility to resume, is to load the image from the HDD, which is much slower. If the computer is able to keep it's RAM-Image inside of the RAM, it can resume directly from there. That's much faster than loading from the HDD. But the HDD is the only possibility to resume after power loss. ---S536870912 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But the article already says this. Look for this sentence: "However, since systems that resume from Hybrid Sleep do so by retrieving information from a hibernation file on disk, they offer the benefits of quickly resuming when in sleep mode [...]"

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, that this was not clear enough to some people. However, thank you. ——S536870912 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Techno (computer virus)[edit]

Hi, S536870912,
Do you want me to restore this article and move it into your user space? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz. Thank you for your response.
I could work on it. If you have nothing against it, you can do it. Will the complete version history be restored (like moving the article here) or will the last version of the source code be pasted here? ——S536870912 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, S536870912, sorry for the late reply, I didn't check back to see if you commented on my message. I've restored the entire article at Draft:Techno (computer virus) if you would like to continue to work on the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it, when I've got time. Thank you! --S536870912 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So where's that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.244.249 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of page Malaysia Airlines Flight 370[edit]

Hello! Thanks for your report to AIV. I've removed it, as we use Requests for Page Protection when it comes to matters of limiting edit access to certain pages. In this case, the request would have been declined, as we do not preemptively protect pages in any circumstances. In the event that page *does* see large amounts of vandal activity, please feel free to report it to RFPP and someone will take care of it shortly. Thank you for your hard work! Best, m.o.p 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks ——S536870912 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) [Pray for MH370][reply]

Blocked without reason[edit]

Hello.

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).

S536870912 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have done no abusive edits at all.

Decline reason:

Another checkuser has already reviewed the evidence and declined to unblock below. There's no reason to keep this on hold.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 7 April 2016 (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.

I took a look at the contribution list of my own IP-Address, and it was blank.

Please explain what went wrong. What does abusive editing mean?

Yesterday, I wanted to log in, to redirect FDB981 to FlyDubai 981. But because I saw, that I was blocked, I decided to go to bed and write on my talk page tomorrow (which is today). ——S536870912 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still Blocked[edit]

Hello.
I have already requested an unblock.
But Bbb23 is offline.

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).

S536870912 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bbb23 will be back in a long time. Can't another checkuser or a steward(ess) verify my block?

Decline reason:

I can't speak for Bbb23, but you have been vandalizing multiple articles while logged out, so no, I will not be unblocking. —DoRD (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2016 (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.

I have a question: What is the exact reason for my blocking?
I have to know what's wrong. What went wrong? I have a guess (already mentioned below), but let's see what happens.

Thank you. I hope that somebody can help me with this. ——S536870912 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2016 (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).

S536870912 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think that I know, what might happened:
There are two possibilities of what possibly happened:

1. Our Neighbourhood had some trouble with their internet connection. They used our internet temporairly. Maybe, they have messed something up… I never checked out my IP-Contribution list.
2. I was editing Wikipedia and my classmates felt like vandalizing Wikipeida just for fun. I thought: „Do what you want… they will quickly revert it anyway. But just please wait, until I log off, to avoid some random trouble with the server cache or IP-Sharing (their Vandalism goes into my contribution list).“ Actually, I did not want them to VNDL Wikipedia, but let's let them do what they want… But If I knew that there's something like a CHECKUSER, I would have forced them to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Thank you for considering my request ——S536870912 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:BROTHER. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:06, 29 March 2016 (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).

S536870912 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Believe me or not… believe what you want…
So what do you want me to do? Please tell me that.

Decline reason:

Creating multiple unblock requests while your original is on hold / waiting will not be productive. If you continue - you may lose access to this talkpage as well. SQL ^{Query me!} 13:29, 30 March 2016 (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.

I strongly suggest that you remove the threat to evade the block by using another account, because as long as that threat is there, you have close to zero chance of being unblocked. (And yes, I know it wasn't phrased as a threat, but it makes no difference.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Alright, I will stop creating more unblock requests. What do you want me to do alternatively? (I can't wait forever. I believe, that this unblock request would be pending and be forgotten after a while.)
Usually, Administrators never feel like dealing with blocked users; even, when they are bored .... .

@JamesBWatson: Actually, you could have removed my suggestion yourself, but I will now do it.
So, what's next? What do you want me to do, to get access to my original account again? How should I proove that I have not done any vandalism?

Actually, my previous idea of a second account was: preventing this kind of trouble in future: I had the idea of creating a secondary account to work safer in a dangerous envoirnment (e.g. at school or shared networks), and not to escape from my block. If other classmates or people, who share my IP-Address mess it up, so that it gets blocked, I will use my primary account, if I get an IP-Block-Exempt soon. Additionally, I will try to convince them to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Let's hope, that I will succeed. I would really like to get my editing capabilities on Wikipedia back. Alternatively, you could just unlock editing access to my own user namespace. That would be good enough for a while.

You can also give me a pending-changes-block for six months or so (which does only apply for edits, that I make outside of my own user namespace), which means, that every edit that I make will be saved as a pending change.

Thank you for your attention and for considering my request. I will look forward to any response and anybody, who can help me with this. ——S536870912 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I knew it all time: no administrator will ever react to my unblock request. I would really appreciate any administrative advice or help. But let's see, how long it takes for any Administrator to react. Probably, I will have to wait for ages, but let's see what happens.—S536870912 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can't really do anything with your block until a checkuser gets involved. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser has already commented here. —DoRD (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what's next? What do I have to do, in order to get unblocked? It may take decades for Bbb23 to return. ——S536870912 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User-Namespace-Unblock[edit]

Please read this unblock request carefully, before killing my editing capabilities for this talk page.

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).

S536870912 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, everyone. I am now taking the high risk of losing „access to this talkpage as well“, which is the only page that I can still edit; so I will possibly be unable to reply by talk page by the time you are reading this.
Nobody seems to believe, that I was involved in network sharing vandalism, because it can't be verified and I am unable to proove it, so I am not requesting a complete unblock this time, but a partial one. I can wait a bit for my total unblock. For now, I would just like to get back editing capabilities for my own user namespace, and the ability, to give a thank to contributions.

Decline reason:

Your block has been repeatedly reviewed and declined. I see nothing new in this request. I am removing talk page access due to excessive requests. You can appeal at WP:UTRS if you like. HighInBC 16:25, 28 April 2016 (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.

I still don't know, which IP-Addresses I logged into, vandalized Wikipedia. The edit history of my current IP-Address is blank, because it has possibly changed.

Are IP-Addresses, that I log into, still doing vandalism, or has it stopped?

…however, here are:

My last words:[edit]

I am very unlikely to get out of here alive, so:

Thank you for your tolerance and your assistance.
I really appreciate tolerant administrators.

Have a nice day everybody.
Best wishes, ——S536870912 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Remove?[edit]

_{I thought about removing this section again, because it's a potential risk for my editing capabilities, but good bye.}

iPhone 7[edit]

Don't you think, that the iShit 7 sucks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.228.239 (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, S536870912. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of school massacres in the United States for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of school massacres in the United States 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 school massacres in the United States 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. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"La La La La La" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect La La La La La. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 4#La La La La La until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 17:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]