User talk:Callumsmth

This is Callumsmth's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Goldenberry Hill has been accepted[edit]

Goldenberry Hill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callumsmth, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Callumsmth! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Irish Law (mountain) has been accepted[edit]

Irish Law (mountain), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Matt Hancock, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ——Serial 20:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Hancock. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

——Serial 20:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Hancock. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Matt Hancock was changed by Callumsmth (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.89825 on 2021-06-26T20:15:49+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was not me on my account, it was hacked and I have made many constructive edits to Wikipedia including two new articles from scratchCallumsmth (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thanks for letting us know. As per WP:COMPROMISED, this account is no longer eligible for unblock consideration. Yamla (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2022 (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, I have access to the account now. Could you please re review?

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).

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

Request reason:

This is untrue, and verification should be made and editing rights reinstated. As previously mentioned I have made two new articles within the first week of joining and have made numerous contstructive edits. Yamla is incorrect in their statement! Callumsmth (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You said you were hacked, not Yamla. See WP:COMPROMISED. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2023 (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.

(talk)You are wrong! How dare you state incorrect information!

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not say that my statement was untrue, I meant Yamla's assertion that my account is ineligible for unblock consideration is inaccurate, as can eaisly be seen in the very link they provided! see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPROMISED

Decline reason:

From the very page you linked, If you have made an unblock request and claim that your account was compromised, hacked, or used by someone else, this will likely not work. If your account truly was compromised and you aren't playing games with us, you should contact cawikimedia.org * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 17 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Would someone please explain how i am to be unblocked. What evidence do I need to provide and to whom. You all seem to be not following your own guidelines so what procedures are even in place?! Bit of a shitshowCallumsmth (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You said "I was hacked". Guideline says Compromised accounts will not be unblocked. Your best option is "I was lying, I made the objectionable edits". Otherwise, your explanation of being hacked will be accepted at face value. If it's a shitshow, you brought in the shit. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:45, 19 December 2023 (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.