User talk:GioIzHawt

Welcome[edit]

Hello GioIzHawt and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Cupboard, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Jab843 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cupboard has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cupboard was changed by GioIzHawt (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.989029 on 2015-11-17T23:33:09+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cupboard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Melonkelon (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cupboard has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cupboard was changed by GioIzHawt (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2015-11-29T04:31:20+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cupboard with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lor^Talk 04:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Cupboard with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 29)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:GioIzHawt/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 08:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Pre-Columbian era. Serols (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked from the site because I was blocked almost five years ago when I was only 12 years old and way more immature then I am now. I agree that I deserved to be blocked then for trolling and vandalism, but I hope that I can convince you that I have matured since then. I have recently made a few edits correcting typos and other things under the ip address that I am writing this under. I initially didn't care very much that I still had this old banned account because it was banned under a different ip address then the one then my home one is, but after reading the wikipedia article on sockpuppeting and ban evasion I have decided that I might as well just appeal the ban for this account now. I could probably get away with continuing to make minor productive edits under my home ip address but I figured that if i'm going to participate in this community I might as well apologize and fully come clean to avoid any trouble in the future. I hope you all are able to accept my apology and understand that my past record of vandalism reflects a younger and more immature version of myself. I am older and more mature now and I would like to continue making edits for this site without having to hide this old blocked account. Thank you. Here is the ip address that I have been editing on since this account was banned [courtesy blanked] as you can see pretty much all of the edits in the past few years have been constructive. Thank you for taking the time to read my appeal, and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have for me. GioIzHawt (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Given the time and well-written nature of the unblock request I feel an unblock is appropriate. I don't feel there's any benefit in placing additional restrictions, including the ability to edit as an IP if you wish (rememeber that you shouldn't use both in the same discussion etc). Best of luck! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GioIzHawt, I'm certainly willing to consider unblocking you. Normally in cases like this I'd have just moved at that point, though the sockpuppeting would usually be a straight no, but I'm satisfied with your explanation on that IP you give doesn't have any edits associated with it as far as I can tell. You aren't required to publicly disclose it, but if you are going to put an IP in, you might want to check that's the one you've actually been editing with. In any case, @MusikAnimal:, given the timeline and explanation here, do you have any objection to me unblocking? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: No objection. I am also satisfied with their explanation. The IP given is a Comcast IP, hence the /64 range should all be the same end user. Edits look fine to me (or at least they have constructive intent). — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I support an unblock as well, 5 years is certainly a very long time, and being upfront about the IP editing is a sign of maturity. As long as there isn't any other socking that is hidden, an unblock seems to be right. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]