User talk:Heyandwhoa

Me.
Questions down here. :) Heyandwhoa (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Protip: best way to get unbanned is not to keep begging to get unbanned, but to slow down, use yer brain, and consider why you got banned, and then go and post "I understand what I did, and I won't do that again, because XYZ reasons". People aren't banning you because they personally hate you, but because you are causing problems, for example making a lot of mistakes and not reading the docs, etc. etc. HTH. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have been falsely banned on Wikipedia BECAUSE I have been mistakenly been confused with another user. Plus banned forever?! Ok, not begging, thank you though. Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If it's really not you, then see question 4 on this page: Good luck. Equinox ◑ 00:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WDYM, I've been CONFUSED with another user! Inf ban! Instant! Why are you saying that I'm not me???? Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Second protip: you sound quite young, like maybe under 16. I don't know your age and I don't want to know, but I do know that younger users get pretty enthusiastic about things, which may mean (i) you decide you want to "add" loads of content, but don't really do the research, and end up creating a ton of junk (I'm afraid you did that here); and (ii) when there is a problem, like being reverted or criticised or blocked, you panic and want to immediately respond with 20 panicky posts. IN FACT, it is better just to step back, take a breath, go have dinner or something, or take a nap, and come back to it when you really have a good idea about how to reply with logic and sense, instead of just emotion. (Wiktionarians are thinking "Equinox, how can you have the chutzpah to say this? You are an emotional maniac" — ahh but it's only when I drink too much alcohol. I am a paragon of sanity otherwise... maybe.) Equinox ◑ 00:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, there is a lot more to life than Wikimedia.
 * Also, see question 6 on the page Equinox linked to above. DCDuring (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree your editing style suggests you're quite young, if unusually knowledgable. The person you're accused of being on Wikipedia has been editing since at least 2015 and was clearly an adult with strong opinions on specific issues from his very first day.  Personally I think you could be hardly less alike. But a checkuser block is based on evidence others cannot see, including administrators, so I can only guess at what the connection might be.  I certainly won't be going through  this long list, but it may be that Kingshowman is known to mimic other editing styles in order to maintain his disguise.
 * Also, I suspect it was no secret to most of us that you were a new account for the "I guess" user. We did not hold this against you, or ask why you needed a second account, so I think we've been more than kind in welcoming you here (although I admit response times here can be slow).  There is nothing we can do at this moment, but I would urge you not to create yet another account to try to evade the block on Wikipedia.  If there was a mistake, we will bring it to light in time.   Best wishes, — Soap — 07:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, you think that I'm that guy 'cause I'm extreeeeemely alike?! WDYM, I'm "usually knowledgeable"??? And you're thinking I'm him because of 15 edits on there and evidence you cannot see?? This is a mistake!!! If you want proof, I can send my phone number, email, or something!!!! Heyandwhoa (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply.
 * No, we dont need your personal information. None of us have given it out either ... there are better ways to advance claims of a mistaken identity. Thanks for being forthcoming but this wont be necessary.
 * However, Im not sure you correctly read what I wrote up above. I actually believe you when you say that you're not the person this block was intended for.
 * I would be willing to contact Maxim on Wikipedia suggesting that he may have made a mistake in associating you with the Kingshowman account. There isn't really anything we can do on this site, so I'd like to move the conversation over there as soon as possible.  If  you'd prefer to handle this yourself, you can follow the suggestions linked above on the common questions page, although I'd say that if you're sure you're not using a VPN, the block was almost certainly not an accident, though it still may have been a mistake.  Please let us know what you would like to do next. Thanks, — Soap — 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure you can talk to them. Heyandwhoa (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm still blocked on Wikipedia even though I moved to this account. And also I have not been abusive, like what? Heyandwhoa (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the page, and I agree with you that you don't deserve to remain blocked, but it will go much better for you if you handle this on your own. They want to hear your explanation, not someone else's. Make sure you're honest .... if you have a third account, or have been editing on IP's, you'll need to mention that and not try to hide it. — Soap — 14:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't even have a 3rd account anyways. Writing my explanation right now. Hopefully they know what "main" and "old account" means anyways. Like just ban me 1 day not forever days! Like they think "Oh your accounts have been 'abusively' done stuff, get inf ban, lol kid, declined." Heyandwhoa (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

200th Edit!!!!!! Yeahhhhh!!!!
This is my "200th edit" though it's more like 300 something. New questions down here? Heyandwhoa (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Subpage: User:Heyandwhoa/Making stuff. Heyandwhoa (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yay, 300 edits! Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My 400th edit: []. Heyandwhoa (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating entries
Hey. I've seen the message you left on my talk page earlier, and since it's been deleted I take it as you having retracted the request, but either way since you asked for advice I wanted to give some tips on creating pages from existing citations pages using that one as an example. Not sure how detailed you need it but here it goes.

First off, you want to make sure that there is the needed amount of citations to meet the criteria for inclusion (at least three) and that they are actually using the word (see the ). Then, try to figure out if the quotations are all using the word in the same meaning and what the meaning is. In the case of unearly, it's fairly straightforward and just means the opposite of early. So you create the page with the adjective, define it accordingly, and add  to the quotations section. But also, you gotta take into account the context here and the fact that it's a fairly rare word and it isn't listed in any other dictionary, and even the citations page creator hesitated to create an entry page for it. So it definitely deserves a  label in my opinion. Also add etymologies in cases where it's clear with just a suffix like here (so ). If you have questions on creating entries past this then I suggest consulting the entry layout guidelines and specifically the English entry guidelines. lattermint (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Appendix:Minecraft & WT:FICTION
Concerning this edit, I wanted to inform you that WT:CFI includes a section called WT:FICTION. Further, there is a page called Appendix:Minecraft. Note that editor Equinox seems opposed to this most of this field of work, considering it cruft. If you worked on Minecraft terminology, you may get some resistance and feedback. I had been working on Appendix:Mass Effect recently. Best wishes, thank you for your contributions. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Whoa whoa (or woah), don't scare me like that, I just woke up. OK, I get it I'll never put that there ever, just a mistake. Didn't realize. Heyandwhoa (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Premature RFV closure
Please don't prematurely remove requests for verification like here with the template and here with the topic. If you've already gone through with nominating an entry for RFV, then it has to go through the usual proceedings which are outlined on the RFV page (basically, if an entry gets cited, then you have to wait at least a week without any challenge before you can remove the template on the entry, and the discussions themselves are never just removed and are archived by other people using specialized tools; if an entry doesn't get cited for at least a month, then it can be marked as having failed the request). Also, as others have pointed out, it is not advisable to keep removing discussions on pages other than your own talk page, even if your question/request has been answered/satisfied. lattermint (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally: have some patience. Requested Entries sometimes hang around for years. RfV and RfD hang around for months. You can't force them by nagging people "do it, add citations", this just creates clutter and annoyance. You will help Wiktionary a lot more by doing work than by yelling at other people to do work (which is very rude anyway; you ain't their boss). Don't write "why has nobody done X yet"; instead, do X yourself. Equinox ◑ 04:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand, I won't do those actions instead. (But how are you people finding words so fast?) Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

coffee etc.
The ˈ is placed immediately before the stressed syllable. So (using my local vowels): Hopefully makes sense. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * coffee, coughy = /ˈkɒf.i/
 * coughee = /kɒfˈi/