Hello, MechMaster Katzenstein, and welcome to Wikipedia!
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
MechMaster Katzenstein, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi MechMaster Katzenstein! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).
Hello, I'm Adam9007. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Geraldo Perez that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry it's just that GirCrazyWaffles recently made a false edit that The NutShack aired on Nickelodeon, NickToons, and PBS Kids which is false because the show is for adults not babies MechMaster Katzenstein (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but according to Wikipedia, you're not supposed to link yourself to social media sites related to your Wikipedia account,
as Wikipedia isn't a social media site. It says so in this article: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to help. Superchunk22 (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed how you warn vandals on their user pages for making unconstructive edits, and I thought it would help you if I linked you the Wikipedia user talk template page. It has a list of templates that you can use to warn unconstructive users; that way you can properly warn them and stop them from making further edits of that kind. Just trying to help. Here's the page: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Superchunk22 (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why we blank old IP talk pages.
Regarding edits like this one, where you asked "Can't I just view the talk page", there are reasons why the answer is that we'd rather you not.
First, the IP talk page is often the first point of contact that a new editor has with other editors on Wikipedia. Since IP addresses are dynamic, a person may start editing from a given IP address without even knowing it. Imagine if, after your first edit or two, you received a message (with the typical "new message" bar) and went to the corresponding talk page for the very first time, and found a wall of warnings against you? Therefore, we sweep these messages clean from time to time, so that our newest users are not confused and driven off by them.
Second, IP talk pages with large numbers of links on them create link load, which occurs when an editor looking at the "What links here" page of a given article sees a large number of irrelevant links crowding out the kinds of links the editor is looking for. This is particularly a problem for disambiguators trying to clear all improper incoming links to disambiguation pages (which can occur in multiple namespaces).
Third, due to the two concerns above, the community has determined in various discussions that IP talk page messages should be blanked after a certain number of years. There are bots that carry out that function from time to time, and manual restoration is a waste of resources, because the same bots will eventually cycle through and blank those pages again. Therefore, restoring those pages wastes a little bit of the bot's time and probably somewhat more of your own.
I have deleted User talk:2804:14D:8E8C:600:55AF:A2AE:A138:70A1, but only after viewing your original version to see if there was a genuine reason for deletion - and I saw the 3-second flashing strobe video that you linked. That can be very dangerous for someone with epilepsy, and it's triggered a migraine with me. I appreciate that you asked for it to be deleted, but please don't ever do anything like that again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Superchunk22 (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're not an administrator, so you can't block anyone off of Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd stick to making sure your own edits were not the subject of negative scrutiny, since you seem to be drawing attention to yourself in a variety of questionable ways. Maybe for the time being you should focus on making sure your own edits are solid until you get a sense for how other experienced editors deal rationally with disruptive edits? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you don't ever do this, vandal or not (or anyone; we don't like to put users in epilitic shock). Use the items we have here to fix vandal edits and use appropriate wording to deal with vandals. Nate•(chatter)05:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on your past edits (while checking for any further flashing video attacks), I see a few other examples of problematic behaviour...
You should not edit other people's comments on talk pages, as you did at here. They are a record of the things people actually said and how they said them, not of how you think they should have said things. And do not edit war over it, as you did here.
People are generally allowed to remove messages from their talk pages, so you should not "Revive past edits" as you did here and at multiple other pages.
You really should not be adding block notifications to user talk pages, especially not when they're stale - for example, you created User talk:Paul Mavis with a notification for a block that was imposed 10 years ago! (I have deleted it now). A blocked user knows they're blocked, so leave any notifications to the blocking admin at the time.
User talk pages are rarely deleted (and almost never when they contain legitimate discussion, notification etc), so you should not request their deletion as you did here.
It is generally well known that previous messages on user talk pages can be found in the history, and we do not not add messages like this to user talk pages.
Red links should not be removed if they are plausible future articles, for example here. Having them there as red can act as an inspiration for someone to create the article.
I told you not to post flashing strobe videos to try to attack people, as it can be very dangerous (and your previous one triggered a migraine with me). You have just done it again, multiple times at different user talk pages, and your comments and edit summaries make it clear that you know what you were doing - and looking back through your editing history, I see it is a regular tactic of yours. Deliberately trying to punish someone by triggering an epileptic seizure is a horrible thing to do, and is far worse than any vandalism on Wikipedia. I have indefinitely blocked you from editing, as we do not tolerate such vindictive and dangerous behaviour here.
You think the fact that some guy was bothering you is some kind of justification for trying to trip him into an epileptic seizure? That it's in any way acceptable to try to cause physical harm to someone as revenge for their annoying you on Wikipedia? And it's not just this one person - it's clear that this is a regular tactic of yours. You already had your second chance and you contemptuously blew it, and a vague suggestion now that you can "try to not use scary logos that give seizures" is nowhere near sufficient in my view. Anyway, that's just my opinion - if you want the opinion of another admin, I've given you directions for requesting an unblock in the block message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2017 (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).
Unequivocally no. Your behaviour has been utterly egregious, and there is no justification for it. I am removing talkpage access for this account. Yunshui雲水12:30, 8 November 2017 (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.
You didn't mean to give a seizure to someone? I specifically told you at User talk:MechMaster Katzenstein#User talk:2804:14D:8E8C:600:55AF:A2AE:A138:70A1: "That can be very dangerous for someone with epilepsy, and it's triggered a migraine with me", and you acknowledged it. Then you posted this edit summary, "OK THATS THE LAST STRAW IT TIME FOR YOUR GREATEST PENALTY YET", immediately before making this edit (warning: video link at that page contains a rapidly flashing strobe image) commented with "Enjoy your nightmares". You knew what you were doing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know 😔. But if it wasn't for him mocking me, I won't of give him the Ear Booker Production logo and I would of still be around making edits. Maybe instead of seizure inducing logos. How about giving someone a warning. MechMaster Katzenstein (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MechMaster Katzenstein: Looking back over your edits, I think what I'm seeing mostly is immaturity - I suspect you are quite a young person (but please do not reveal any personal information here). If that's true, young people can mature by a surprising amount in six months (which happens to be the minimum suggested time for Wikipedia's Standard Offer). I suggest you take six months away from Wikipedia and do something else you enjoy. Then, if you feel you properly understand all of the problems you have had here, first read about the Standard Offer again to be sure you fully understand it, then make a request at WP:UTRS. If the reviewer feels you are approaching this in a mature way and that you genuinely understand the seriousness of your actions, they might agree to reinstate your talk page privileges for you to make another unblock request. But six months, minimum! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee: do you think the link to the strobe light video should be revision deleted? (Granted, I shouldn't have clicked on it and I regret doing so, but it is disruptive and may be clicked on by other curious individuals). What is your opinion on this matter? PS - if Mechmaster were to appeal in six months' time, I would be more than willing to mentor him. Patient Zerotalk11:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, definitely, and I have done so. Your offer of mentorship is a kind one. Unfortunately, MechMaster Katzenstein has already been evading the block with User:184.56.47.51, and helpfully told me so on my talk page - apparently trying to justify the strobe attack because the other guy was trolling first. That resets the standard offer to six months from today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks for your help Boing. That is disappointing - I had failed to notice that. Let's hope that's the first and last instance of block evasion we see from him. Patient Zerotalk11:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
