Hello, Littletpott, 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 Bellevue, Washington 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.

______ Why (I) Edit Wikipedia: ______

I thoroughly enjoy learning and bettering myself at any time and all the time. Whenever I start to research something I usually start with wikipedia. That's why I chose to begin editing this website. I feel like contributing knowledge is a right and privilege. I believe age is just a number.

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!  SounderBruce 20:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at El Paso, Texas. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SounderBruce 20:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Bellevue School District, you may be blocked from editing. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 21:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bellevue, Washington. Peaceray (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bellevue High School (Bellevue, Washington). Peaceray (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits, as you did at Bellevue High School (Bellevue, Washington). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Peaceray (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bellingham, Washington, you may be blocked from editing. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Laughs Comedy Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alxeedo TALK 02:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Elise Ikeda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Olin Nespor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Fathoms Below (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Littletpott,

This indefinite block isn't about your coding skills. Look at your User talk page, it's filled with warning messages that you didn't pay attention to. You are writing content without providing any sources that verify it is true. This is unacceptable and much of what you wrote sounded like you just made it up. You are free to appeal your block but a request won't be granted until you understand that you have to cite sources when you make claims, especially about BLP. that is, living persons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think they are vandalism and I don't exactly like the edits I've made but just look at the messages I have gotten from wikipedia. "Thank you for contributing" "10 edits keep it going" Littletpott (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is precisely one message on this talk page saying something like that. There were numerous messages telling you to stop, including five warning that you could be blocked. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to find the proper tools I need to use on this website. Littletpott (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Liz said, the articles you created had no sources and showed no indication that their subjects met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I just started learning how to edit Wikipedia and basic coding information in February 2025. One thing I find annoying about this website is that a lot of articles I'm interested in and know a lot about have very basic information. Also the language I think they use could be better. I JUST started editing wikipedia, I mean I've been using it more than half of my life. If you think the information I contribute is wrong or edited poorly don't block me, contribute to what I've started and we can keep it going in a positive direction Littletpott (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:47, 18 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ok so I understand my previous edits have been unproductive. I want to work towards getting unblocked and I think as long as I don't go into a downward spiral I think I can be a positive member of the wikipedia family Littletpott (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing in here actually addresses the issues. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2025 (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.

Hi there! I've moved your unblock request to the bottom of the page as doing so can help those reviewing your request. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To help with your unblock, can you state why your previous edits were unproductive and what you will do differently in the future? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific language I used in the edits I made were unproductive and... well if you'd describe them from a person reading wikipedia it would appear as vandalism. My goal is to only post information on pages that improves the information there is. Littletpott (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Littletpott, looking at the warnings on your Talk page it looks like the problem was more to do with sources to back up the information you were adding to articles.

Can you please read through the blue links you've been given previously, especially the ones for citing sources, notability and BLP? When you've done this, it'd be great if you could look through your previous edits and explain why they were problematic and how you'd approach it in future after reading the guidelines.

I know this sounds like a lot, but blocks are only ever meant to prevent disruption - they are not a punishment of any sort.

It'll only remain in place until you can show an administrator that you've learned why you were blocked and know how to edit properly going forwards.

On a separate note, I saw that you mentioned going into a "downward spiral". If I'm misreading this and you're not referring to mental health, please ignore everything else I'm going to write.

The internet can be difficult if you're facing any mental health challenges, whilst Wikipedia involves a lot of collaboration and interaction with other editors that's restricted to text on a page. That means there will be disagreements, times where your edits are reverted/challenged & occasionally just flat-out misunderstandings. If you think this will be at all difficult for you, or could negatively affect your mental health, now would be a good time to think about how you would approach these situations & if/when you should edit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a mental thing. Littletpott (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Littletpott Understood, thank you so much for letting us know! I just wanted to make sure that you're ok & might need a bit of support if unblocked :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

awww you're so cute Littletpott (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am not going to continue to make disruptive edits if I'm unblocked. In fact, what I plan on doing if I get unblocked is to suggest edits to pages I know I have useful knowledge on. And when another positive member gets these ideas I suggest they can help me figure out if the information should go on the page or not. This will prevent people from thinking my behavior is in fact vandalism. Littletpott (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am not going to continue to make disruptive edits if I'm unblocked. In fact, what I plan on doing if I get unblocked is to suggest edits to pages I know I have useful knowledge on. And when another positive member gets these ideas I suggest they can help me figure out if the information should go on the page or not. This will prevent people from thinking my behavior is in fact vandalism. [[User:Littletpott|Littletpott]] ([[User talk:Littletpott#top|talk]]) 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am not going to continue to make disruptive edits if I'm unblocked. In fact, what I plan on doing if I get unblocked is to suggest edits to pages I know I have useful knowledge on. And when another positive member gets these ideas I suggest they can help me figure out if the information should go on the page or not. This will prevent people from thinking my behavior is in fact vandalism. [[User:Littletpott|Littletpott]] ([[User talk:Littletpott#top|talk]]) 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am not going to continue to make disruptive edits if I'm unblocked. In fact, what I plan on doing if I get unblocked is to suggest edits to pages I know I have useful knowledge on. And when another positive member gets these ideas I suggest they can help me figure out if the information should go on the page or not. This will prevent people from thinking my behavior is in fact vandalism. [[User:Littletpott|Littletpott]] ([[User talk:Littletpott#top|talk]]) 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment) Hi again, FYI I've moved your latest appeal to the bottom of the talk page, this makes it easier for everyone to understand what's happening in order. If you need to do or add anything more, please try to add it underneath the most recent post (or the post of whoever you're replying to). Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Can you be a bit more specific in describing why your edits were disruptive? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language wasn't professional. Also, some of the edits (there were about 20) posted details which aren't exactly useful like the information you'd normally find on a wikipedia page. 71.212.84.161 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit while logged in so we can confirm who we are communicating with. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ya sorry i dont know why i wasn't logged in Littletpott (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

whats the next step @Significa liberdade? Littletpott (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]