User talk:Hydrogenbicycle

Hello, Generikuser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Surviv.io did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  Yeeno (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for very specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ok Generikuser (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Generikuser, you were advised that you were not permited to edit in the topic area until you are extended confirmed. With your edit at Special:Diff/1310899996, you ignored that advice. Please don't let this happen again. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so 500 edits and I can contribute to that topic infested with irani bots. Understood Generikuser (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

To make clarification, just 500 edits of any magnitude and then it’s qualified to participate? Generikuser (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

There are policies against "making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but 500 recommended edits of improving small errors in articles is not one of the “bad” methods, as it is pushed by the website then? Generikuser (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I think "improving small errors" could easily count as making "trivial edits". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

So the method and risk of accusation is subjective and not objective? Generikuser (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, go find stuff that needs improving and don't be concerned with how that will get you to 500. TarnishedPath^talk 06:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Executive Order 14099. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Generikuser. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Executive Order 14099, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Generikuser. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Executive Order 14099".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you were missing an edit here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Generikuser

It's the one that said:

• 21:04, 10 September 2025 diff hist +337 Talk:Shooting of Charlie Kirk →It was an assassination and any denial is insincere: new section

Just FYI, I think you need to ask at WP:ANI about it if it was an error. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Generikuser (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Unsure how to fix. You can do it? Thanks. Generikuser (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at admin. I think you need to ask here?

WP:ANI <-

I think that means an admin hid that edit. I've seen it once before, but I can't remember where now. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated violations of the extended confirmed restriction (including Special:Diff/1320486157, Special:Diff/1320485667, Special:Diff/1320485374, Special:Diff/1320485012, and Special:Diff/1320484474) on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

— Newslinger talk 00:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

ok i think i just need to make more edits (genuine edits as always) but if these genuine edits are in 1 topic does that mean it's not good? lets say i make the required amount but it's in a few specific topics. anyways i totally forgot that rule lol Generikuser (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

wait oh wow its actually run like a mf country haha. i think ill need a wikilawyer lol anyways grokipedia solos Generikuser (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

viva guyana libre carajo Generikuser (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

yeah anyways i have a seperate question. how do you guys legit know you don't have hostile foreign agents on your site spreading propaganda. is it possible agents of a certain oil-rich country with biases against a certain western ally have infiltrated this site in a hypothetical context? i haven't been able to find a single document on this so i'd appreciate it if you can show me an article or whatever Generikuser (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

When your block expires, you are free to make constructive edits in any topic area that is not covered by the extended confirmed restriction (ECR), and there is no requirement for your edits to be spread out among different topics. The restriction also allows you to submit constructive edit requests on article talk pages (i.e. pages beginning with "Talk:", but not "Wikipedia talk:" or non-article talk pages) that overlap with a topic area covered by ECR, as an exception. Please note that while you are blocked, your user talk page is intended for questions about your block, but not for general political discussion; you are free to ask your latter question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (which includes politics in its scope) after your block expires, as long as the question does not overlap with a topic covered by ECR. — Newslinger talk 09:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The comment you posted above is pretty clearly a commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is exactly what you were blocked for. If you continue to make such comments after this block expires, your next block may be much longer. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

so i have question. i haven't found a specific article on venesuela agents influencing wikipedia. if i have enough sources can i make article of that? my goal is write quality encyclopedia articles in english without bias or issue, yes lots of quality articles of high quality and no controversy Generikuser (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have enough sources, you can try, but please read this guide first. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

real real apologise and clarification

esse cosa es sobre simplamente de guiana, petroleo, y los carajos gobiernos venesolanes k si? pq no leas

Question: i rly appreciate the clarification that expressing interest in the current conflict of two AMERICAN petroleum nations of Venezuela and Guyana is potentially disruptive, as i was TOTALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. I don't wish to anger sr maduro in case he goes after whatever family i may or may not have nearby, i dont wanna give away my location or location of relatives ya?. If i attempt to impart more knowledge about vzla, the wonderful people of guyana, and my infinite knowledge about hunger and socialism, will I get banned from en wiki? what horror

I apologize and realize that this curiosity of the venesuela guyana issue could be too controversial for a non-power user like me and like Goku, I must achieve Super saiyan by editing my way (legitimately) to power of level 500. I will refrain from asking you if Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute results in maduro land being shaped like elephant until then. U accept my apology to develop as a person yeah?

anyways i have made a lot of contributions (suggestions) on Grokipedia about the venesuela and guyana issue, which is 100000% the only issue I am talking about and focusing on. What an interesting thing! I think more people should check out Grokipedia because we need more information diversity to make sure wikipedia is equitable and fair for all!

yea i kinda have a real job rn so its gonna take a saiyan arc to get to 500 cause i work and stuff so see ya in a while

so yeah im kinda clueless but is guiana like locked or whatever i need a wikilawyer rn. like maybe ur way too serious but like legit legit i get the mistake we real? Generikuser (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

qe are wikilawyers real this site is run by people who think they are like judges or something bro like u have job and family right? no way this is real. like if we have porteno tier wikijudges either i need hyperinflation wikibribes or a wikilawyer who actually got good grades from UBA Generikuser (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you're fine to edit on Venezuelan topics once the block expires. I thought you were referring to different countries. I apologize for the confusion. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, following up about the merger discussion at Talk:Mar-a-Lago face. This comment is an unacceptable assumption of bad faith against Very Polite Person and the other authors of Mar-a-Lago face. Also, please do not vote for things that would disrupt Wikipedia, like non-neutral articles, just to make a point. This is a logged warning in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator in the American politics contentious topic area. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Very well then how am I bloody supposed to prove bad faith when it seems very apparent on my behalf (Redacted) 22:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oops wasn’t logged in do disregard (Redacted) 22:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've struck out and suppressed the temp account, you're good. The honest answer to your question is that there's no way enough evidence exists for you to prove that the article was written in bad faith. Even when we do sanction users for battleground editing, we usually leave open as many good-faith explanations for the behavior as we reasonably can. Importantly, though, that shouldn't matter for the purposes of the merge discussion – if you think the article should, say, be deleted because it's severely non-neutral, just say and prove that by looking at the text and sourcing of the article, rather than trying to guess the intentions of the writers or trying to create other non-neutral articles to demonstrate. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough my bad but I strongly believe that article is being politically weaponized, imagine if an alt-right agitator made a similar article about “blue haired liberals” or the like. How should I approach this without breaking Wikipedia standards because I do not believe that article should exist in its current form. What should I do then? Generikuser (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I would open up a thread on Talk:Mar-a-Lago face and list the reasons you do not think this article has a neutral point of view. (What other people will care about, in responding to your post, is what reliable sources determine the neutral point of view to be.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

This is not the place to suggest Wikipedia guidelines or essays.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Proposal for a wp:ragebait policy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Hydrogenbicycle! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

How can i propose a new policy for Wikipedia is an essay the wrong way Hydrogenbicycle (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)