User talk:Prayingmantis211

Block evasion
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your IP was blocked for repeatedly adding unsourced (and useless) content to an article after being repeatedly warned not to. This account was blocked for block evasion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I showed the description and a citation. What more do you want. And my content is not useless, it is part of the history of the video. I was never warned to stop editing. My content was just deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prayingmantis211 (talk • contribs)
 * I have changed your second unblock request to a comment. Multiple unblock requests are not needed. SQL Query me!  02:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you need me to clarify why this information is pointless (or better yet, how "Me At The Zoo" has parity with the Bill of Rights, as you suggest above), then you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Recommend removing access from talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh really, I shouldn’t be editing Wikipedia. Oh no!! That bill of rights part was a joke anyway. But still why is that information pointless? Tell me and I will stop editing this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prayingmantis211 (talk • contribs)


 * You were reverted 5 times by 4 different editors and warned twice, the last warning being a final warning. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this edit better, I got rid of the source as YouTube, and got rid of the part about it having been written earlier. As I said, there is no articles about this, but it can be clearly be seen by anyone on the video.

The video has been hacked with the description reading

"sub2sub kthxbai -- fast and loyal if not i get a subs back i will unsubs your cahnnel (Credit: The name of the music playing in the background is Darude - Sandstorm)"

The comments have also had YouTube Bots spamming messages asking for subscribers. It is unknown who has hacked the video. (Prayingmantis211 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)).
 * There is nothing notable whatsoever about some idiot "hacking" the description of an old Youtube video, period, nor is there anything noteworthy about bot comments. Referencing the video itself as a source is what we call a primary source. If you spend any time looking at Wikipedia sources, you'll see they are nearly always 3rd party sources; e.g. a news site that meets reliable sources guidelines.  Unsuprisingly, no third-party source has written about this "hack" because it's not noteworthy or significant in the least bit. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand why you may think that it is not notable. However this is the FIRST video uploaded to YouTube. If this was not significant may you please tell me what is? Is it that the video was on a top ten list? Listening to you advice, may it be better to write the content like such under the section where it talks about the script of the video: The description and video was hacked by an unknown person resulting in the description and the comments being vandalized.{Prayingmantis211 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)}
 * There's nothing further to discuss here. There are no third-party sources discussing comments on that video, because there is nothing noteworthy about them. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)