User talk:Edit of edit

November 2022[edit]

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

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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022 failed unblock appeals[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I did disruptive edits which is very wrong and I promise I will do wrong again when you unblock me Edit of edit (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please describe specifically how your edits were disruptive, what you will do differently, and the constructive contributions you intend to make. This will demonstrate your understanding of this situation. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 25 November 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.

My disruptive edits were:(all in 2022) changing the Talk:Robert Marley(cricketer) to a redirect to Talk:Bob Marley, adding unsourced material to Storm Barra(2021) and removing the Short description: None from architechture of hong kong in november. Also, I introduced incorrect information into hurricane Irma in June. What I will do differently is make more destructive edits. The constructive contributions I intend to make are adding the dissipated date when a storm dissipates, copypasting the maximum wind gust of a storm which dissipated recently from the season to the storm article and introduce incorrect information into articles. (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You must make another unblock request. I have fixed your comment for proper display. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 25 November 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).

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

Request reason:

My disruptive edits were:(all in 2022) changing the Talk:Robert Marley(cricketer) to a redirect to Talk:Bob Marley, adding unsourced material to Storm Barra(2021) and removing the Short description: None from architechture of hong kong in november. Also, I introduced incorrect information into hurricane Irma in June. What I will do differently is make more destructive edits. The constructive contributions I intend to make are adding the dissipated date when a storm dissipates, copypasting the maximum wind gust of a storm which dissipated recently from the season to the storm article and introduce incorrect information into articles. Edit of edit (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"What I will do differently is make more destructive edits", oh goodness no. We don't want you to make more destructive edits. Perhaps this is a language barrier? Yamla (talk) 13:10, 25 November 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).

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

Request reason:

"What I will do differently is make more destructive edits" it is not a language barrier i mean to make destructive edits!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edit of edit (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Either trolling or complete incompetence. Favonian (talk) 14:21, 25 November 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.

I am NOT confusing "constructive" with "destructive" i mean disruptive Edit of edit (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be disruptive, we will need to leave this account blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS appeals[edit]

UTRS appeal #65901 is closed. Promised to vandalize. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an outcome of UTRS appeal #76030, I have restored talk page access, to allow you to post an unblock request here. However, if you do so then the administrator who reviews that request needs to be aware of the fact that, while that UTRS appeal was expressed in positive terms, in your previous appeal, mentioned above by Deepfriedokra, you unambiguously stated that you intended to vandalise if you were unblocked. To have any chance of being unblocked you will need to persuade an administrator that you have had a genuine change of heart, not just a change of tactics to get back to vandalism. JBW (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a language barrier, but man that one ticket. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: At first I too thought that it might be a language barrier, but later posts to UTRS convinced me that it wasn't: it was plain and simple trolling. JBW (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if it turns out that you are just trolling again, expect to have both talk page access and UTRS access removed, with precious little chance that they will ever be restored. JBW (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep my billy goats at a distance. (I will also have ready my Ban Hammer of Love and Cleansing]] -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

==After talk page access added==

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Dear Admins: I sincerely apologise for any and all vandalism, the blanking and vandalism of the bob marley pages, the insertion of unsourced information into storm barra, the sock puppet account and for the unambiguous promise to further vandalise the site. Since then, I have had a change in heart as I promise to no longer disrupt Wikipedia any further and to make constructive contributions from now on. Examples include: Corrections to data that might be outdated or incorrect with new and updated sources, ensuring that all of my significant edits have a reliable source to be backed up on, discussing significant contributions on the article’s talk page first, and only after the consensus of multiple admins executing the suggested changes and reverting any and all vandalism that I am in time to see. If you are willing to accept me as a helpful contributor to this site, please unblock me as I have had a change of heart during the time that I have been blocked, and I believe that I have done my justice. Yours sincerely, Edit of edit. Edit of edit (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've waited for a week to give the blocking administrator a chance to express an opinion, but he still isn't around, and I don’t think it's fair to leave you waiting forever, so I am going ahead with this now. You have indicated that you expect to edit constructively in future, and not repeat the same kind of thing which you did before, and I see no reason not to give you another chance. I will unblock your account, and I look forward to seeing useful contributions from you. JBW (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, you blocked this editor. Do you have any opinion as to whether to give them another chance or not? (Unfortunately HJ Mitchell has recently been editing infrequently, so it may be some time before he replies, but I think we should wait at least a while to give him a chance to express an opinion if he wishes to. In the meanwhile, of course, other administrators may like to comment too.) JBW (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not forums[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edit to Talk:Two Knights Defense, please remember that talk pages are for discussion related to improving the corresponding article, not general discussion about its topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Talk:Two Knights Defense is not a place for discussing the Two Knights Defense. It is solely for discussing improvements to the article itself. Please stop abusing Wikipedia's article talk pages as general forum pages. --Yamla (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]