User talk:Psl85

Welcome to my talk page!
Please post your comment below others and type four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your posts.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Psl85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~), or by clicking the button, this will automatically insert your signature with username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 13:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at GameCube. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. This is extremely disruptive to do a cut and paste move of this nature, especially in light of a recent Requested Move for this that failed and had a clear consensus against it. -- ferret (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do this again and I'll block on the spot. This isn't your first attempt at this, and your previous effort to get the redirect deleted was also reverted. -- ferret (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for notifying me. I would rather have the official name as the title rather than simply "GameCube". I'll try to NOT do it again. Psl85 ^talk _edits 12:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

hi, its Daffaakbarr. I indeed did a significant change on Pitch Perfect 2. I removed the majority of the music section and moved them to their own page, which i just created, so it will be like the first film's music section. I also changed the image to match the Pitch Perfect and Pitch Perfect 3 posters displayed, since the one i newly uploaded matches them. I genuinely forgot to write an edit summary i'm so sorry. because honestly even i'm not a relatively new user, i'm still very stiff in this wikipedia world. I just simply want the page to be in the same formation as the first Pitch Perfect and maybe eventually i'll do the same with the third film's page. Daffaakbarr (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Psl85 ^talk _edits 18:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Can I revert my edits on the article? Psl85 ^talk _edits 18:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

James G. Watt[edit]

Literally nothing about it is unconstructive. 2601:249:8200:73DB:1AE:CA2:8F5D:B240 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you gonna try and answer or just keep putting a bunch of fake warnings up? 2601:249:8200:73DB:1AE:CA2:8F5D:B240 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!, the warnings is for you vandalize articles, not fake warnings. Psl85 ^talk _edits 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am literally allowed to do whatever I want on my own talk page. 2) You are crying "vandalism" at literally the most ordinary of edits without explanation and throwing a fit. YOU need to explain. 2601:249:8200:73DB:1AE:CA2:8F5D:B240 (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the edits the IP made, and I'm not seeing how they can be considered vandalism. If the edits don't look like they've been done with malicious intent (which is not the case here), don't revert them as vandalism, because they're not. And if you really do need to revert the good faith edits, then actually explain the reasons for it.

Oh, and users are allowed to remove content from their own user talk pages per WP:OWNTALK; that is, if a user is not currently blocked and they removed any messages on their talk page, don't readd them. Thank you. SkyWarrior 18:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyWarrior:, it's looks like they're going through a slew of recent edits to put up "unconstructive edit" warnings on people's pages, some of which may be equally unwarranted. 2601:249:8200:73DB:1AE:CA2:8F5D:B240 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am literally allowed to do whatever I want on my own talk page. 2) You are crying "vandalism" at literally the most ordinary of edits without explanation and throwing a fit. YOU need to explain. 2601:249:8200:73DB:1AE:CA2:8F5D:B240 (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the edits the IP made, and I'm not seeing how they can be considered vandalism. If the edits don't look like they've been done with malicious intent (which is not the case here), don't revert them as vandalism, because they're not. And if you really do need to revert the good faith edits, then actually explain the reasons for it.

Oh, and users are allowed to remove content from their own user talk pages per WP:OWNTALK; that is, if a user is not currently blocked and they removed any messages on their talk page, don't readd them. Thank you. SkyWarrior 18:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at James G. Watt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Psl85 ^talk _edits 18:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will not do it more, this user rapidy revert my edits. Psl85 ^talk _edits 18:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Psl85. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Warning for volating 3RR[edit]

You are currently violating our strong 3RR policy and risking being blocked from editing. Psl85 ^talk _edits 18:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a checkuser finds that you are using more than one account, posting a simple denial will achieve nothing for you. While you reconsider your request, should you choose so to do, you might also review your editing from this account, which contains a disturbingly high number of incorrect or inappropriate edits. The edits which you have made criticizing the edits of other editors are nearly all wrong; if you succeed in achieving an unblock when the sockpuppetry has been explained, take note that continuing to edit inappropriately on other editors' pages can be seen as disruptive. This is itself a blockable offence.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue contribute on wikipedia, please set an block expiry or unblock me please, my edits is not disruptive? Psl85 ^talk _edits 18:09, 12 February 2018 (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).

Psl85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm do not using multiple accounts.

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..

To the point-- you need, at very least, to list all other accounts and IP's you have edited with. You need to explain what you hoped to achieve. You must affirm that you will not do so again. Further, you were clearly not editing constructively. Until you are able to recognize how you were editing unconstructively, there is no point in unblocking you. You must affirm what errors you made and assure us that you will not make them again. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2018 (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.

Hello. I'll not make any more errors, but if I see a possible BLP issue or vandalism tag, I'll revert the edit and left a notice/warning on their talk page. I will not do so again.

If I request unblocking and it will be declined, please protect my talk page. Psl85 ^talk _edits 20:35, 12 February 2018 (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).

Psl85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not use multiple accounts and i will make good contributions. The reason for the block is "sock puppetry", that a user account "pppppp 111111" was created an another user, I did not, I WILL NOT MAKE ANYMORE UNCONSECUTIVE EDITS.

Decline reason:

As this is a WP:checkuser block, I am not allowed to unblock without checkuser approval. As you can see below, there in so such approval. You may appeal to the WP:ARBCOM. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2018 (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.

Psl85 ^talk _edits 19:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Is there any behavioral evidence here? Can the technical connection be enough to claim that those two are the same person? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: The sock was a vandal. Psl85 is a disruptive, incompetent editor. That's a behavioral connection. Psl85 would have no doubt been blocked as WP:NOTHERE if I hadn't blocked them for socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1985 video games listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1985 video games. Since you had some involvement with the 1985 video games redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Can an admin protect my talk page, because my unblock request i requested was declined? Psl85 ^talk _edits 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next declined unblock request may cause to your rights to edit this talk page being removed. Psl85 ^talk _edits 20:00, 18 February 2018 (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).

Psl85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I is NOT a sock puppeter, and i did not make disruptive edits/vandalism, and I will continue contribute. Psl85 ^talk _edits 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I already told you that a simple denial in the face of the evidence would be ineffective. As indicated in previous declined request your access to this page is now revoked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:03, 18 February 2018 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Psl85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20673 was submitted on Feb 19, 2018 14:01:17. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Psl85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20683 was submitted on Feb 20, 2018 17:48:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Psl85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20730 was submitted on Feb 25, 2018 08:54:15. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

This user has engaged in block evasion as of April, 2018. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has engaged in block evasion as of June, 2018; see 46.227.72.0/24. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wood logs" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wood logs. Since you had some involvement with the Wood logs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]