User talk:109.106.227.160

• I know only three of them (in absolute value): 2, 3 and 11. Are there others? Many such numbers have many prime factors.

Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hexadecimal, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 89 (number), 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. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ComplexRational. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Beryllium, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Template:Infobox samarium isotopes, 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. ComplexRational (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 109.106.227.160. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Attractive code, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Attractive code, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well over two years ago you were warned, several times, about the need for citations to sources for content of articles, but you have continued to add unsourced material; in fact as far as I can see you have never added any citation for any edit that you have done. Some of what you have posted into articles is certainly true, but for some of it I have been unable to find any confirmation. Unfortunately, in an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, we cannot simply assume that something is true because someone who has decided to edit here says so. Please don't continue to add article content without any indication were that content comes from. If you do continue to do that, you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator; in fact it is surprising that that didn't happen long ago, in view of the messages you received about it, and the extent to which you have carried on in the same way. I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and perhaps also Wikipedia:Verifiability, to see what kind of thing is needed. JBW (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on English orthography and French orthography are seriously questionable. Wikipedia is not a personal spreadsheet to document every letter and sound combination you've ever discovered, it's meant to be a useful reference work for a general audience, and your additions reminds one of the map–territory relation where a reference model becomes totally useless because it's exactly as unreadable as what it supposed to be modelling. You need to elaborate what you think the point of what you're doing is, because I think it's a disservice to the reader. Remsense ‥ 论 18:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Citing sources

You have been blocked temporarily from editing as you were warned would happen if you continued to post material in articles without providing references to sources. Some of what you have posted is certainly false, and more of it is highly dubious. In addition, there have been other problems, such as writing text in articles which is incoherent and incomprehensible, and posting material which is irrelevant to the context in which you have posted it. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sorry, but the word gageure has eu not initially, before /z/ nor phonologically finally.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Too long block

Decline reason:

Too little attention to why you're blocked --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:07, 25 September 2024 (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.

109.106.227.160 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I got a first block on September 12, 2024. Sorry, I think 2 years is an extremely long time for my first block. Some of my edits are true, and some are not. 109.106.227.160 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are very focused on the length of the block and not the reason for the block. If this were an account, there would likely be no end date at all on the block. To be unblocked, you need to speak to the reason for the block and tell us what you will do differently. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2024 (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.

Yes, it is a long block. However, you have been continuing the same kind of unconstructive editing, and ignoring messages, for almost three and a half years. I think it is extremely likely that if you had done the same using an account you would long ago have been blocked indefinitely, and I see no reason why not using an account should allow you more privileges than you would have if you had used one. However, the block can be ended if you post an unblock request which convinces an administrator that you understand the reasons for the block, and won't do the same things again. So far you haven't done so. JBW (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasons for the block. I added some links to Quora on a few pages and contributed to the page French orthography many times without any sources. Please allow creating an account.

Please put new posts at the bottom of the page. Putting them out of order makes it difficult for people reading them to keep track of the relationships among posts. JBW (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]