User talk:Uricdivine

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Henry Danger have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Henry Danger was changed by Uricdivine (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853623 on 2022-03-20T07:36:35+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please,my edit was necessary. In the movie he was known as schwoz schwartz Uricdivine (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Erling Haaland, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added what was already there for a long time fo I need citing sources? Uricdivine (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Uricdivine (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lol1VNIO. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Millie Bobby Brown, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude,check who is Millie dating on the internet also go to her Instagram page and check it or go to jake bongiovi Instagram page and you will also see it. You guys just remove edits but don't make edits so annoying. Check what I told you and then put it back ok? Uricdivine (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i just wanted to ask you why you removed my edits about Millie Bobby Btowb and Jacob Sartorious having been in a relationship? You say that i didn’t add reliable sources but i did actually; I added a source from usmagazine.com and The Daily Dot Spiderwinebottle (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude!! How would you write that a 14yr old girl is in a public relationship. Neither Jacob nor Millie ever admitted that they were dating because the were just kids. And no those aren't reliable sources. They are just gossip sites Uricdivine (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused - that’s literally not true though? Under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Daily dot is listed as ‘generally reliable’, and Us Weekly (usmagazine.com) is listed as ‘no consensus’/‘unclear’. Saying that neither Millie nor Jacob admitted to being in a relationship is just false :/ Spiderwinebottle (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uricdivine please do not address editors as "dude" or 'bro". While I am sure it is not your intent, it comes across as disrespectful. Also, the key to a good argument here is citing reputable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I see above you reference Instagram so knowing Wikipedia's WP:SOCIALMEDIA guidelines is helpful. For example, what Jake Bongiovi says about Brown cannot be used in Brown's article. I also suggest reading Wikipedia's Biographies of living people policy. You may have valid points but the way you are going about it is not going to get you far. I will leave some additional for you about editing Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Uricdivine!

Hi i did not mean any disrespect by addressing someone as dude or bro,yes there wasn't any reputable sources cited so it is why I removed it Uricdivine (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Jack Griffo—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kira Kosarin, you may be blocked from editing. – DarkGlow • 12:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dark glow,I am not doing any disruptive editing and if I am I am sorry,in kira kosarin page I wanted to edit but both my keyboard and Wikipedia were having problems so I abandoned it to prevent further disruption and admit in the talk page what I did. Am sorry I love Wikipedia I can't be blocked forgive me.also I am not having any disputes with any editor Uricdivine (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll assume the mistakes were genuinely in good faith and that you were not vandalise. I've retracted my warning. – DarkGlow • 14:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DarkGlow yes it was Uricdivine (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Twin, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 23:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uricdivine . Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal Thank you for the lengthy welcome and advice I really appreciate. But I have to ask is this about something I did or I have done? Or was I just chosen randomly by you? Am I in any sort of trouble?.. To be honest for me to easily understand your advice I would love to know which page or pages I edited that made you send me this it would make it mo4e easier for me to know where I was wrong or the mistake I have made. Thank you Uricdivine (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uricdivine. I had removed [1] an unreliable source that you had added [2]. Because you haven't been editing long, I left you the message above, rather than something specific to the edit. --Hipal (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal. This is one of the reasons I dislike many rollbackers. I assume that [Noah schnapp] is in your watch list not because you edit his page but because all you do is just go there and revert other people's edits that the have made. Clearly you don't know anything about Noah because if you did you wouldn't have removed my edit. I included Noah schnapp has a twin sister because 1. In the paragraph about his early life schnapp birth place and how his parents and him moved was included but no mention of schnapp having a twin was included 2. About his YouTube channel if you do know anything about schnapp you would no that in his YouTube channel his sister Chloe is very active there because majority of the videos are of him and her.if you know who schnapp was and you follow his lifestyle and social media you would be aware of this that he has a twin sister.. forgive my uncoordinated words but all I am trying to tell you is that after reading this message go to YouTube search for Noah schnapp watch his videos and see for yourself his twin sister doing vlogs with him also go to Instagram check who he follows and also check his birthday picture where he wished a happy birthday to him and his sister. And if my sentence about schnapp having a twin sister is removed I would report you about ignorance and hindrance of free speech. About reliable sources you don't expect BBC,Forbes,big news networks to report about Noah having a twin. Uricdivine (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the article on my watchlist. I regularly cleanup unreliable sources from articles. That's all I tried to do, and gave you a detailed welcome message when I did so. --Hipal (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal ok. About your recent edit on [Noah schnapp] page,I do not mind that his twins name wasn't included all I wanted was for readers to know that he has a twin and that where it is written that he and his parents moved from one city to another that it also includes his twin. And if by preferences you mean citations I would try my best to look for reliable sources and update his sister's name. Uricdivine (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uricdivine, you might from WP:RSP helpful. It certainly is not an exhaustive list of sources but does give an idea of sources Wikipedia editors find reliable versus unreliable along with the reasoning. You can also check the Reliable sources noticeboard to see if a particular source has been discussed before. (Note - your talkpage is on my watchlist because I have edited it so saw your response popup). S0091 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S0091 I don't mind. Thank you for your reply. What you sent will be helpful for me being able to create my first page about notable people who don't already have and also it will help me know how to edit pages with supporting citations so thanks I appreciate. Uricdivine (talk)£

Hi, I moved the article you created Boy Spyce to draftspace Draft:Boy Spyce so you can further the article before submitting it for review. Osarius 13:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. But I have a problem when ever I edit and save to look for more information about the person and I try to save I will see a message saying there was edit conflict and my changes won't be saved why? Uricdivine (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This means that there is another session editing the same content at the same time. A bit odd for a new draft article, especially if it's happening all the time. You might want to check that you are not opening up multiple windows yourself for editing. The conflict error message has plenty of guidance on what you can do to resolve it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. But anyway never mind they article has been abandoned due to lack of coverage on his life by reliable sources. Willondon Uricdivine (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page Help:Boy Spyce has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

G2: Test page

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jay (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay I personally asked for it's deletion. Uricdivine (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged for deletion as a Test page by Singularity42 and I didn't doubt it because of the page swapping that was happening across Draft and Help namespaces. In any case they are deleted now. Jay (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uricdivine! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Tagging and user page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Gwen is a writer for fall out boy the stuff on YUNG Gravy and Logan Henderson was a joke please cease and desist before fall out boy gets involved 35.143.190.63 (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uricdivine! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, template help, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:CIR. This user is wasting community time, over 30-40KB of warnings removed from talk page, reporting IPs to AIV without any reverts/warnings, other inappropriate recent change patrolling, numerous repeat request for perms, SIGIMAGE violations and arguing..

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 ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

unfair block. I have never reported ips to aiv without warnings or revertes, I have performed inappropriate patrolling, that is not a signature violation and what is wrong if a used request for permissions Uricdivine^TalkToMe 02:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined. Ferret is correct that you've made a number of bad decisions while patrolling and appear to be a general drain on community time. I would suggest taking some time off, reflecting on all of the warnings you've gotten in your short time here, and then coming back with a coherent unblock request that explains what you've done wrong and how you will change your behavior in the future if unblocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2022 (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 "not" performed inappropriate patrolling, that is not a signature violation... mistake. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 02:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate revert of reliable content, claims of needing a consensus in a situation that doesn't need it, as well as a gross violation of AGF, improper reverting which I fixed, reporting an IP to AIV for a single edit, which you neither reverted nor warned the IP about, and remains live. FOUR requests for rollback in less than 3 months. This is all in your last 20 edits. And of course after being told by multiple admins that you had an image in your signature in violation of SIGIMAGE, you doubled down repeatedly, only removing it after a block was threatened and then continues to claim it wasn't a violation. -- ferret (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, there hasn't been an issue with my patrolling which I am aware of. I have worked in "recent changes" with the tag "may have problems" and "likely have problems". As for the patrolling problem mentioned by ferret I will explain what happened below. I agree and take full responsibility for every wrong draftifying I have made. For all my warnings most of them was when I was new and my edits was either reliably sourced which I provided and they were left to stand and also the current ones was lapadite was "content dispute" and other admins said it didn't warranty a block. — Uricdivine^TalkToMe 10:14, 28 August 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ferret, as for this this the system detected the IP added disambiguation links into the article as for saying his was a sock abi I apologized. As for the "improper reverting which I fixed" hope your aware that a bot reverted you?. As for reporting an IP to AIV here is what I have to say: I took AV from user ingenuity when I was patrolling recent changes and found who made has blp violations edits multiple times I wanted to report him because his talk page was already filled with warnings instead of using Twinkle I tried AV(anti vandal) so when I was in the display screen I clicked report and took a screenshot (because I was not understanding what was happening and I wanted to ask ingenuity my self) the reason I took a screenshot was because when I clicked report it became reporting another random user and I wanted to ask ingenuity if that was how it works but I couldn't find the screenshot in my phone to upload to commons so I didn't send it again to him and I I didn't try the same procedure again to get a screenshot. I take full responsibility for this. Am still wandering what me requesting rollback has to do with me being blocked, there isn't any policy about that right. "Multiple"? It was only you and general notability and I was in my preferences trying a whole new signature design before I saw an email in which you asked me why has my signature remained the same even though I know I haven't signed since I was informed then I went back to reply you and I changed it too I agree not with the block threat but so we would move into a new discussion about my patrolling. 10:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Uricdivine^TalkToMe[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't an unblock request, but even if it were, I would tend to agree that some time away would be extremely beneficial for you. I would strongly advise you to wait for some time before requesting unblock again. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2022 (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.

331dot, aiit I will. Let me stick to reading cause that was the reason I found Wikipedia. Then after a while I retry. Happy editing y'all. Praxidicae inner smile:). — Uricdivine^TalkToMe 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know JJCM89Bot removed the image I restored. This wasn't due to a specific issue in my revert, but that the same IP that messed with the article had removed the image's rationale separate, which I've fixed. As for the rest: You do understand that disambiguation links are not automatic grounds for revert, correct? You just need to help fix the link. You never apologized to the IP you accused of socking. I can barely understand your sentence about the IP on AIV or the signature issue. Repeatedly requesting permissions is not grounds for block on its own, but simply evidence along with the rest that you are causing too much disruption and wasting the time of other volunteers. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand why admin ferret took action. I take full responsibility of every action I committed using this account. I agree I have inappropriately used patrolling scripts due to the recent patrols I made I never should have accused a contributor of being a sock puppet. for this although I know that I cannot fully show evidence that what I did was a mistake which the script made I also take responsibility and promise to abandon the script as evidence I ask that my other AIV be reviewed and it will show that I normally use TWINKLE not AV. It was three request for rollback; and I never knew repeated request was some kind of violation, and lastly as for SIGIMAGE violation I did infact go to preferences until user ferret began involved and I had to leave my changes and go and reply them. Am aware that my contributions do infact give reason for a sanction, I ask that reviewing admins and blocking admin should at least consider my reasonable contributions so far(vandalism work for months) and if not an unblock reduce my "indefinitely" to maybe a week of month so that I can contribute constructively to this encyclopedia thank you.Uricdivine^TalkToMe 15:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User clearly demonstrates the need for this block with each post and needs more time for reflection. Removing TPA so they can stop digging this hole-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it seems plain to me that this is a good block, and this request makes me believe that you are not currently willing or able to engage in a constructive discussion about it. I've revoked talk page access to prevent dragging out the inevitable. You are free to use UTRS for future appeals, but I would strongly suggest taking a few weeks before you do so. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2022 (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 recommend the next admin to decline revoke TPA. In each response and unblock request Uricdivine continues to take snipes at other editors, such as the prior unblock where they thought they had me in a "gotcha" because of JJCM89Bot, or the little comment about Prax having an inner smile. They continue to try to mislead, now claiming 3 rollback requests, but they have 5 total requests for rollback including approaching individual sysops for 2nd opinions. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret, also I do believe that my talk page access can only be revoked if my comments are "inappropriate and/or disruptive" which they are not. All am trying to do is plead my case and accept my wrongs . — Uricdivine^TalkToMe 15:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an uninvolved observer, so maybe you'll be willing to take some advice. Doubling down on the same type of arguing and (incorrect) rules lawyering isn't going to help you. Take a week away, come back and reread the discussions with fresh eyes, and see if you can identify the issues with your editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking requires an uninvolved admin to review the request, so it is disruptive requesting unblock over and over again, wasting more admins' time. I too believe you should take a few weeks off and then come back when you see the error of your way. – A person who warned you three months ago ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I only said your revert to my revert has been reverted. Which is in is entirety true because the bot removed it I had to tell you because my revert was necessary. As for saying that about prax is there any thing wrong with that? Even before I was blocked I said in her talk "this has been your wish since I created an account". As for request for rollbacker my intent was not to mislead I release that I made a mistake it was not "three" but "four" I withdrew my "3" request making it invalid. On my God how did I approach individual admins for second opinion? this edit shows that I went to the talk page of the same admin who declined my request and pled my case which means your claim that I went to individual sysops for second opinion is false. The admin also apologized for not responding to the comment I left them on thr request for perms page. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 15:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are disruptove, so full of CIR and wikilawyering. You've had good advice, gentle coaching, and now I'm here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef is not infinite. Time limited blocks are ineffectual in cases like this. They do not ensure a remedy. Indefinite means whenever you can show that you will not cause further disruption. The odds of that grow longer every post you make. I'm shutting this down before your dig to the antipodes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for (WP:CIR. This user is wasting community time, over 30-40KB of warnings removed from talk page, reporting IPs to AIV without any reverts/warnings, other inappropriate recent change patrolling, numerous repeat request for perms, SIGIMAGE violations and arguing.). In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]