Maxipups Mamsipupsovich

how do i add a section, rather than clobber the top of your page? I cant seem to delete it, either.

Maxipups Mamsipupsovich, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Maxipups Mamsipupsovich! 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 Gestrid (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

QWERTY

Thank you for your edit to QWERTY. You did not write it I know, but can you check the sentence that says to enter "Ź", one can type Shift+AltGr+X with Caps Lock off, or turn on Caps Lock and type AltGr+X. Should it read AltGr+Z?

Also, if everyone uses a US layout, how can it have an AltGr key, which doesn't exist in US layout? Thanks. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence is correct. AltGr + Z produces Ż. By "AltGr", I assume the sentence means "the rightmost Alt key", which is called AltGr on Chromebooks and some Windows devices. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 15:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue

"Blue username > Red username"

Aha, I've got you there!

Red username < Blue username < G r e e n . u s e r n a m e

This post was made by Green Username Gang

(Also, you're quite correct, language is only a fad in the cosmological sense, where humanity itself is just a fad)

Yours with love, Joe (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you know what else is just a fad? Green usernames. Blue username >>> Green username.

Hey, Max's mum here. He's just insecure about the colour of his username and is envious of people with green usernames. Go easy on him. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Rosen Trap" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rosen Trap. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#Rosen Trap until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 12:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

R and I issues

Hello,

I'm not sure if you noticed my ping yesterday, but I would I like your input in the discussion here: [1]

Aside from you, there are at least six other editors who have been trying to deal with similar issues on these articles over the past few months. You can see some of the past discussions about these issues here: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] All of the discussions about misrepresented sources were shut down before they could reach a meaningful conclusion, but reading them is useful to understand the background.

In the current discussion (the first one I linked to, in Stonkaments' user talk) the thing we're trying to decide is how to approach this issue going forward. Two options being considered are to nominate the FAQ for deletion, or to request an arbitration case. My preference would be for an arbitration case, but not everyone else there agrees. If you have an opinion about that, it would be valuable for you to offer it there. Gardenofaleph (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice it. I'll take a look. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Oldstone James per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldstone James. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Just note that, in my 1 year of editing from this account, I have significantly improved numerous articles, most notably Chess, but also others such as Grotesque (chess) and Romantic chess; made what must be thousands of necessary copyedits that would've likely never been made had I not created this sockpuppet, leaving hundreds of articles with SPAG errors; and have caused 0 disruption. Not a single edit-war, not even a single re-revert, no filibustering on the talk page ─ hell, not even a hint of conflict on the talk page of any article other than R&I (and even on that page, I escaped the conflict about as quickly as it arose) ─ nothing that could be possibly construed as POV-pushing (even on R&I, I made a deliberate effort to engage in exclusively those discussions that were based around raw logic and were free of subjective interpretation). Just makes you think about how much of a service you are really doing to Wikipedia by blocking me. If there is anyone who genuinely believes that this account has brought net harm to Wikipedia and that this block only serves to protect it from this account, I'd like to have a long conversation with that person, because I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly think that. Don't count this as an appeal, because I know how things work around here now ─ if you didn't make it into the good books of the "experienced editors", there's nothing you can ever do to make them change their minds about you. Even if it appears that they have changed their mind about you, like in the case of Guy Macon, they will still turn their backs right on you after the first instance of human error on your part. Like, I literally got topic-banned on creationism for creationist POV-pushing, and I run a blog on atheism, including anti-creationism. If those are the lengths of absurdity to which these editors will go to get rid of people who don't agree with them, then there is no amount of evidence that I can provide that will make any form of appeal successful. But still, whoever is reading this, I just want you to ask yourself if you truly believe your decision to keep me blocked is in the benefit of Wikipedia. Somehow, I doubt that you do. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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=Just note that, in my 1 year of editing from this account, I have significantly improved numerous articles, most notably [[Chess]], but also others such as [[Grotesque (chess)]] and [[Romantic chess]]; made what must be thousands of necessary copyedits that would've likely never been made had I not created this sockpuppet, leaving hundreds of articles with SPAG errors; and have caused 0 disruption. Not a single edit-war, not even a single re-revert, no filibustering on the talk page ─ hell, not even a hint of conflict on the talk page of any article other than R&I (and even on that page, I escaped the conflict about as quickly as it arose) ─ nothing that could be possibly construed as POV-pushing (even on R&I, I made a deliberate effort to engage in exclusively those discussions that were based around raw logic and were free of subjective interpretation). Just makes you think about how much of a service you are really doing to Wikipedia by blocking me. If there is anyone who genuinely believes that this account has brought net harm to Wikipedia and that this block only serves to protect it from this account, I'd like to have a long conversation with that person, because I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly think that. Don't count this as an appeal, because I know how things work around here now ─ if you didn't make it into the good books of the "experienced editors", there's nothing you can ever do to make them change their minds about you. Even if it appears that they have changed their mind about you, like in the case of Guy Macon, they will still turn their backs right on you after the first instance of human error on your part. Like, I literally got topic-banned on creationism for creationist POV-pushing, and I run a blog on atheism, including anti-creationism. If those are the lengths of absurdity to which these editors will go to get rid of people who don't agree with them, then there is no amount of evidence that I can provide that will make any form of appeal successful. But still, whoever is reading this, I just want you to ask yourself if you truly believe your decision to keep me blocked is in the benefit of Wikipedia. Somehow, I doubt that you do. [[User:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich|Maxipups Mamsipupsovich]] ([[User talk:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich#top|talk]]) 02:08, 29 June 2021 (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=Just note that, in my 1 year of editing from this account, I have significantly improved numerous articles, most notably [[Chess]], but also others such as [[Grotesque (chess)]] and [[Romantic chess]]; made what must be thousands of necessary copyedits that would've likely never been made had I not created this sockpuppet, leaving hundreds of articles with SPAG errors; and have caused 0 disruption. Not a single edit-war, not even a single re-revert, no filibustering on the talk page ─ hell, not even a hint of conflict on the talk page of any article other than R&I (and even on that page, I escaped the conflict about as quickly as it arose) ─ nothing that could be possibly construed as POV-pushing (even on R&I, I made a deliberate effort to engage in exclusively those discussions that were based around raw logic and were free of subjective interpretation). Just makes you think about how much of a service you are really doing to Wikipedia by blocking me. If there is anyone who genuinely believes that this account has brought net harm to Wikipedia and that this block only serves to protect it from this account, I'd like to have a long conversation with that person, because I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly think that. Don't count this as an appeal, because I know how things work around here now ─ if you didn't make it into the good books of the "experienced editors", there's nothing you can ever do to make them change their minds about you. Even if it appears that they have changed their mind about you, like in the case of Guy Macon, they will still turn their backs right on you after the first instance of human error on your part. Like, I literally got topic-banned on creationism for creationist POV-pushing, and I run a blog on atheism, including anti-creationism. If those are the lengths of absurdity to which these editors will go to get rid of people who don't agree with them, then there is no amount of evidence that I can provide that will make any form of appeal successful. But still, whoever is reading this, I just want you to ask yourself if you truly believe your decision to keep me blocked is in the benefit of Wikipedia. Somehow, I doubt that you do. [[User:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich|Maxipups Mamsipupsovich]] ([[User talk:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich#top|talk]]) 02:08, 29 June 2021 (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=Just note that, in my 1 year of editing from this account, I have significantly improved numerous articles, most notably [[Chess]], but also others such as [[Grotesque (chess)]] and [[Romantic chess]]; made what must be thousands of necessary copyedits that would've likely never been made had I not created this sockpuppet, leaving hundreds of articles with SPAG errors; and have caused 0 disruption. Not a single edit-war, not even a single re-revert, no filibustering on the talk page ─ hell, not even a hint of conflict on the talk page of any article other than R&I (and even on that page, I escaped the conflict about as quickly as it arose) ─ nothing that could be possibly construed as POV-pushing (even on R&I, I made a deliberate effort to engage in exclusively those discussions that were based around raw logic and were free of subjective interpretation). Just makes you think about how much of a service you are really doing to Wikipedia by blocking me. If there is anyone who genuinely believes that this account has brought net harm to Wikipedia and that this block only serves to protect it from this account, I'd like to have a long conversation with that person, because I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly think that. Don't count this as an appeal, because I know how things work around here now ─ if you didn't make it into the good books of the "experienced editors", there's nothing you can ever do to make them change their minds about you. Even if it appears that they have changed their mind about you, like in the case of Guy Macon, they will still turn their backs right on you after the first instance of human error on your part. Like, I literally got topic-banned on creationism for creationist POV-pushing, and I run a blog on atheism, including anti-creationism. If those are the lengths of absurdity to which these editors will go to get rid of people who don't agree with them, then there is no amount of evidence that I can provide that will make any form of appeal successful. But still, whoever is reading this, I just want you to ask yourself if you truly believe your decision to keep me blocked is in the benefit of Wikipedia. Somehow, I doubt that you do. [[User:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich|Maxipups Mamsipupsovich]] ([[User talk:Maxipups Mamsipupsovich#top|talk]]) 02:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}