User talk:A50E10AN500ER

Welcome!
Hi A5E10AN500ER! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TheImaCow (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TheImaCow! I do like it here, and I plan to stay. A5E10AN500ER (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Golding Cay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Golding Cay 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 Articles for deletion/Golding Cay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ☆★  Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary?
Like the others YouTube's page like List of most-viewed YouTube videos and List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours, non-music videos aren't highlighted, there is no difference between music and non-music video, so it is not important write "there is only one non-music video", in fact also an other user reverted your edit, and now I also deleted the other unimportant informations--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kjell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kjellberg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Frederick Trump
Hello, I just wanted to inform you that your edit to Frederick Trump has been reverted. This was because it is unclear if his last name was that. Although it is referenced later in the article it is not appropriate for the lead section. Thank you for your edits. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 21:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
FDW777 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Senate majority
Just wanted to let you know that as Mike Pence is still Vice President and therefore President of the Senate, the Republicans continue to hold their majority in the Senate. Moreover, Ossoff and Warnock have not been sworn in yet. As a result, the makeup of the Senate is still 46 Democrats, two Independents (caucusing as Democrats) and 51 Republicans.

Sdrqaz (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

117th Congress
As has been made clear in edit summaries beforehand by other editors (and myself), the 117th United States Congress article (and all other pages in that vein) acts as a historical source. It lists all the members who have previously held office during that office. It is for that reason that Mike Pence is still listed as one of the former Presidents of the Senate, as well as Kamala Harris being listed as one of the senators from California.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aunt Jemima. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You removed historical references and broke internal named multi-reference links.
 * Vandalism? Really? A50E10AN500ER (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Cut it out
If you want your account vanished, appeal on your original account and stop socking. CUPIDICAE💕 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried that when I got banned in the first place. I'm not "socking"; I made a new account and I just want to move on now, and leave that part of my life behind me. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is socking. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, call it what you want. I just want to move on and leave this all behind me now. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then go away and stop editing Wikipedia. Problem solved. CUPIDICAE💕  20:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rude. I want to keep editing Wikipedia. I just want to erase the traces of who I once was. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great way to get banned instead of just blocked. CUPIDICAE💕  20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please just leave me alone. I never did anything to you. I don't know what your problem with me is. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry and block evasion. 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:. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't get to "erase all traces of" your old accounts. Courtesy vanishing, which is basically what you're asking for, is just that--a courtesy--and not one that is extended to users who have an active block. Moreover, part of that deal is abandoning old grudges and disputes; you're not doing that. I also see some troubling edits scattered throughout this account's editing . These are things that, by themselves, I probably wouldn't block over, but they don't indicate someone who is trying to return to quiet, uncontentious editing after a misadventure with their first account, and that makes me not eager to overlook the socking. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have abandoned all old grudges and have not made any effort to bring them back up, because I really do want to put them behind me. Also, what exactly is wrong with those edits? A50E10AN500ER (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have to ask why this is inappropriate it's a good indication that you shouldn't be editing. CUPIDICAE💕  20:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Because they're the kinds of edits that Nazis and white supremacists make, not the kinds of edits that productive users and citizens of the world make. Jorm (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I wouldn't have blocked you over these edits if you weren't already a sockpuppet, although with reservations. But since you are a sock, you're basically asking to be an exception to the rules you're breaking, and if your editing isn't completely 100% uncontroversial (and quite possibly even if they are), that's not going to fly. Someone who is a zero-drama wikignome, making unquestioned improvements, I might overlook the fact that they're a sock. But between your repeated reversions of other people's posts on their own talk page--it wasn't just your edits you were removing--and the edits I've highlighted above, that's not what I see in your edit history. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Something you might want to read
This page may be what you need to read to get what you want done. But you may need to ask from the affected account, not this one. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)