User talk:Debangan345

May 2022[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gran Paradiso National Park, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Declangi (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Adam's apple have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BC/BCE[edit]

Please do not change the dating style in an article from BC/AD to BCE/CE. MOS:ERA is clear that this should only be done following a consensus on the article's talk page. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my comment above, you have again changed the dating style in several articles (here and here). Please do not do this again. If you think the established style in an article should change, it is up to you to get an explicit consensus for that on the article's talk page per MOS:ERA. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued to ignore myself and the editor below. If you do so again, I will have to report you. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't block me I'm sorry that I don't listen but actually I'm trying to improving the wikipedia article and I'm not try to disrupting with editing please unblock me I don't do this anymore Debangan345 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me I'm not going to edit anymore please sorry I don't try to disrupting by changing dating system please Debangan345 (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Christianization of Scandinavia. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Read MOS:ERA and stop changing era styles needlessly. TylerBurden (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Germanic peoples, you may be blocked from editing. MOS:ERA again KylieTastic (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me I'm not try to disrupting wikipedia articles I don't know this that it should be only done in the consensus I now understand that it should not be done like this so please sir don't black me from wikipedia I'm extremely sorry for not reply to you because I was busy before but now I understand all things that you said please unblock me from wikipedia Debangan345 (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2022 (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).

Debangan345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry for what I did I'm extremely sorry I now understand for what I did I promise I will never do it again Debangan345 (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (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) 12:05, 4 September 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.

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).

Debangan345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that why I blocked from the wikipedia because I'm edit to change the dating system of BC and AD to BCE and CE and also removed the template from the wikipedia articles I'm sorry for what I did, I promise I wouldn't do that again Debangan345 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 18 September 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.

@DatGuy: Meh. What say ye?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra I'm generally a forgiving person but I can't see any genuinely positive edits the person has made and they've failed to engage in discussions. If they give examples of hypothetical positive contributions they'd make and you find them convincing, I'm unopposed. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. @Debangan345: please describe what constructive edits you'd make -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please I'm said sorry please unblock me I don't do that again Debangan345 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2022 (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).

Debangan345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please I already said sorry don't block me please I'm promise I will never do this again without any permission or knowing and I don't know about these things actually so please forgive me Debangan345 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your apology is appreciated, but we still need to know what edits you intend to make going forward. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 18 September 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.

(Non-administrator comment) Just some friendly advice: I suggest you read the guide to appealing blocks and also act upon the request from DFO that you please describe what constructive edits you'd make [other than changing era date formats]. No one is angry with you, it's just that volunteer editors and admins only have so much time and cleaning up others' mistakes is not a good use of that time. Surely you can understand why there's a zero tolerance policy given that anyone in the world can edit Wikipedia. Repeatedly writing "I'm sorry, please unblock me" is not going to get you unblocked. You need to convince an admin that you know why they were disruptive by listing the specific constructive edits you plan to make instead, in your own words. Matuko (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]