User talk:Justright89199

August 2020

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have repeatedly added what you assert to be the address of the subject Teddy McDonald. That kind of information is absolutely against Wikipedia policy. It has been not only repeatedly removed, but suppressed from view per Wikipedia policy. If you do it again you will be blocked from editing. MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2020 (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 ~~~~}}. Glen 14:17, 3 August 2020 (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).

Justright89199 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made a geniune mistake and have asked for help to ensure it does not happen again, but now cannot see the replies from the people who were going to help. Actually looking at users elsewhere they talked about Artwriter1 being Teddy McDonald but also I can assure you that Willbackhouse is also him. If you had not deleted the threads you would have seen his posts which are not valid at all on the medium and are offensive to others. Ham701 is only making changes to this page also which is strange. Please unblock me to allow me to try and better myself. Thanks in advance Justright89199 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that the majority of your additions have had to be oversighted, I can only assume that there are severe issues with your contributions. I also highly doubt your assertion that an admin said it was okay to add oversightable material, and see clearly that Melanie told you not to. Address why you continued to add oversightable material if you wish to be unblocked, and do not talk about other people's contributions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 3 August 2020 (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.

About your comment about ArtWriter1 and Willbackhouse: I feel that ArtWriter1 is Teddy McDonald, though I'm not making a comment on Willbackhouse. ArtWriter1's contributions have been mainly focused on Teddy McDonald and people related to Teddy McDonald. Friend505 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Willbackhouse is also Teddy McDonald. His four edits are limited to the page Teddy McDonald. Don't know why you, Justright89199, me, Friend505, and MelanieN have become involved in this Teddy McDonald article. Friend505 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved administrator comment: Justright claims they "made a geniune mistake and have asked for help to ensure it does not happen again." That shows a complete lack of understanding for why they were blocked. The truth is that they posted oversightable material (a subject's address), over and over, at multiple venues, even after being given multiple explanations. A glance at their contributions shows that the vast majority of their contributions here have had to be oversighted. A good example of how they react to explanations can be seen at my talk page, User talk:MelanieN#I'm confused, where I explained the reason for the prohibition and told them never to post the address again, and they replied by posting a link to it for the second time. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, as the blocking admin I completely concur and this was the reason for the block. One look at the sheer volume of revdels after their clear warning above should tell any reviewing admin the rationale. The comments below show a lack of understanding as to why they were blocked or any intention to behave differently. Whilst we AGF this appears to be a SPA. Worst case there's always WP:ROPE but the damage if this behaviour continued would require ongoing cleanup. Glen 19:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN I asked for an explanation which I still have not received. I did not post a link to the specific page but asked if either of the 2 links were agreeable on the basis that they are fact and in as much should be reflected on the relevant page to show true and concise detail rather than items which are advertising. Again, I did not understand that the fact that a link showing an address was an issue where it was not on the actual page. As I said before, other admins said it was OK and should be shown. I seem to be being punished for seeking the truth and thank you Friend505 for understanding that the page in question is being controlled by the person it is about. Perhaps you should be looking to take this page down? I am very sad that you are attacking me for what is right an dif you want to block me forever, well good for you and let a liar and charlatan control a page which is against everything you are preaching to me. It makes a mockery of Wiki Justright89199 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, Justright89199. The person whom the article is about just shouldn't be writing prejudiced information in the article (prejudiced since Teddy McDonald will want the Wikipedia article about himself to be prejudiced in favor of him). Friend505 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN, I think you, or some other patrolling admin such as Glen, should unblock Justright89199. I do not think that the reason for which Justright89199 was blocked by Glen still is appropriate. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glen and I are not "patrolling admins"; we are involved. Some uninvolved admin will come by and evaluate the unblock request. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505, an uninvolved admin will attend to this soon enough. It's 11:40pm here so I'm heading to bed. I have absolutely no issues with anyone unblocking if they feel the block was inappropriate. Glen 19:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good idea, Glen. Thanks. Friend505 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Justright89199. I just want to give you a bit of advice: You should have listened to what others were telling you. If you did, then you would not end up being blocked. I always do, and I have never gotten into such deep trouble. I didn't even ever get to the verge of being blocked. If an admin ever actually unblocks you in the future, Justright89199, you should come back to my advice right here and start doing the right things. Your contributions were contrary to the privacy rules of Wikipedia of living people.

P.S. I hope you will get unblocked, since I trust that you will do the right things. But, if you get unblocked, it is a good idea to first take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines to what content can and cannot be added to Wikipedia, as well as other stuff you can do on Wikipedia. Friend505 (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I were an admin. That way, I could help make an appeal for you and you might be unblocked and you could become one of the greatest contributors to Wikipedia of all time. Anyways, I remain sympathetic to you. NOTICE TO ADMINS: I am NOT affiliated with Justright89199 in any way. I am supporting this user just because this user appears like they could get better if they were allowed to. Friend 505 12:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justright89199. I just want to give you some advice as to why you got blocked and the statements of other admins. CaptainEek didn't exactly know why your content was being suppressed, but I know why, even though I can't see what was in there. The reason was probably because you added content about the address of this Teddy McDonald guy on Wikipedia. You have repeatedly been warned that that flies in the face of Wikipedia's policy, rules, and guidelines, and you have been told to stop. However, you did not stop until you were blocked. The reason for why you were blocked from editing even your own talk page was revoked also seems clear to me: You started writing content on your talk page that was inappropriate. By "inappropriate", I do not mean something offensive; rather, I just mean that you should not have stated that these other admins "obviously have nothing better to do but to try and flex your muscles via Wikipedia". That is inappropriate. That is also why I deleted your comment there. Friend 505 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]