Jump to content

User talk:Parkway28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2010

[edit]

Your recent edit to the page Andy Turner (athlete) appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sam Allardyce, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

  • Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sam Allardyce was changed by Parkway28 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-08-25T17:07:43+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gary Lineker's Superstar Soccer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Gary Lineker's Superstar Soccer. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. the wub "?!" 17:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Chris Waddle. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. the wub "?!" 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits and vandalism

[edit]

I have reverted all of you edits regarding Antony Costa as they were unsourced. You have a long history of making dubious edits, and others have been outright vandalism. If you make another edit like this you will be blocked from editing. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Graham Gooch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • only two players to score a triple hundred and a hundred in a match in all [[first-class cricket]])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Band Aid 30 because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning

[edit]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Band Aid 30. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Piandme (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:32, 24 November 2014 (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).

Parkway28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for my daft edits and would very much like the chance to be unblocked. In amongst the few silly edits, I have made many sensible and worthwhile edits which have improved articles and added correct facts. These are especially true of footballing and cricketing articles. On many occasions, I have also been the first person to update an article- one such being the one on cricketing Knights and cricketers to make a century and triple century in a test match. In addition, I regularly correct grammatical errors in articles and question to validity of certain points. I can be a valuable member of the community and will endeavor to ensure only sensible edits are made. In the words of many apprehended criminals, I think I've learnt my lesson and won't do it again. I would be very grateful if you could find it in your heart and mind to reverse your decision. Kind regards, Parkway28Parkway28 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Too much vandalism throughout this account's history. you've had many occasions on which to learn your lesson and didn't any of the previous times. only (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2014 (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).

Parkway28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am still not entirely convinced that you have taken my initial request into proper consideration. I followed the appeal rules, stated my case and was polite and constructive. The curt, almost facetious response didn't appear to take my apology into account or tell me what I could do to reverse this draconian block. You haven't provided me with any type of time-frame for when I might well be unblocked and I feel that this is unfair. Surely, there should be a visible blocking policy which gives some indication of how long supposed miscreants like myself might have to wait. When you consider the nature of my frivolous edits, there is no history of racism or sexism and I would like to think that this should have some bearing on overruling the block, giving me another chance to make constructive edits to the above mentioned sections or at the very least providing me with a likely end-date. I look forward to hearing from you, Parkway28 Parkway28 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As only said above, you had many opportunities to learn your lesson - in fact, whenever you showed some editing activity, there were highly inappropriate edits mixed in with the good ones. You didn't learn your lesson after being warned in no uncertain terms that further vandalism would lead to a block in 2010, you didn't learn it after these edits were reverted, you didn't learn it after Ponyo's 2013 warning. This isn't just a time-out, but a measure to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia. I find your insistence that there's "no racism or sexism" rather interesting but unpersuasive, given the nature of your vandalism at both Mugabe and Tatchell. The likely end date of this block is "when you can convince us that unblocking you will not lead to a resumption of your disruptive behaviour". Huon (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2014 (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.

{{unblock|Whilst I am grateful for the time which the editors have spent dealing with my appeals,I am somewhat disheartened and now rather shocked by their inability to provide me with a reasonable response to the question of when my block will be lifted. The above response from Huon was more constructive in tone and at least acknowledged the positive and constructive elements of my editing but I must admit to being deeply offended by the insinuation of me holding racist or sexism opinions. The posts referred to about Tatchell and Mugabe make absolutely no mention of either person's sexuality or skin colour and do not in any way show racist or sexism views. In the post about Tatchell, I made the point that he is, in my opinion, phobic of heterosexual people and is an attention seeker. How is that sexist or even homophobic? With regards to Mugabe, calling him a c**t for being one of the most horrific abusers of human rights in the last 30 years is hardly racist, is it? Whilst I accept that calling him a c**t wasn't the most constructive thing to do, it is not in the slightest bit racist. His c**tism isn't exactly tied to the colour of his skin and I am sure that his level of c**tness can be achieved by people of all colours. To refuse to lift my block partly because of this is ludicrous, bordering on plain unfair.. My last area of complaint is with the idea that I will have my ban lifted when I can prove I can edit sensibly. How on earth can I do that when blocked? If this sine die punishment was ever lifted what guarantee do you have that I would leave my vandalism days behind?You have no way of proving I won't vandalise and I have no way of proving that I can edit sensibly. Therefore, the whole blocking process is ridiculous. If you won't take my word for it, what is the point? If you look through my edits, there are a number of careful grammatical improvements which have been missed by readers or probably even editors. Without my input, numerous articles would contain grammatical errors, lexical mistakes and would omit such key details as the 2003 FA Cup final being the first to be played under a roof. Just think how many people have enjoyed that little nugget of information. From looking at the nature of my edits, you can see that I do have good intentions. I would very much enjoy the chance to help improve wiki articles, especially those on the subject of football and cricket or those which erroneously refer to train stations not railway stations. I look forward to hearing from somebody very soon. Somebody with a kind heart and perhaps a sense of fair play who can see the good in a misfit like myself. Kindest regards, Parkway28 Parkway28 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • "One day, he will grow out of this 'gay' phase and after he has gained the suitable amount of attention he craves, he will probably settle down with a nice girl, buy a small cottage somewhere and a couple of dogs" and "He first pretended to be gay in 1969 and four days after arriving he spotted a sticker on a lamp-post in Oxford Street advertising a meeting of the London Gay Liberation Front (GLF) which he thought meant 'happy'" (said of Tatchell) sounds pretty homophobic to me. Squinge (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, there's nothing racist about calling Robert Mugabe a cunt. Squinge (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following that non-answer from Squinge, is there a moderator out there who would actually care to engage in open debate and actually answer some of the questions I have raised? Anybody that might actually know what constitutes homophobia rather than satire? Still waiting for an apology from Huon for deeming me a racit too.
Whether your vandalism was sexist or not is completely beside the point. Non-sexist vandalism isn't permitted either. Also, expecting a definite end date for an indefinite block isn't reasonable. That you seem to be defending your vandalism is to me only an indication that we'd have to expect more of that kind from you if you were unblocked. Huon (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, If it is beside the point, why do you and other moderators keep referring to it? All I have done is respond to unwarranted accusations of homophobia or racism. You accusation of racism has been discredited by another moderator and following that, I would expect an apology. I would also like you to show me exactly where I have defended my vandalism? All the way through, I have apologised and admitted fault, so I would be interested to know where you have found this defensive statement. I have raised questions which have been ignored and engaged in sensible, mature discussion. The responses I have then received have been dismissive and irrelevant. Can you please respond to my points about how one can go about convincing moderators that one has changed their ways when they are unable to edit? I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Parkway28.
Your unblock request is, in essence, a repeat of your earlier unblock requests. In this context, I have revoked your talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

[edit]
Stop hand
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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2014 (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).

Parkway28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to ask whether my block could be lifted, please. I have been banned for over a year now and have served my time in exile with good grace. After this period in the wiki wilderness, I have seen the error of my vandal ways and will resist the temptation to make authorised edits. Since being blocked, I have anonymously made responsible edits to some articles, most recently on the 1988 FA Cup final. I have tried to make a good impression during my wilderness year and know that it will take time to win back the trust of the editing team. I can be of immense use to the project as my knowledge of sporting, cultural, geographic and grammatical matters, is very strong and I would like to be able to contribute effectively. Perhaps in my initial appeals, I was too strong and let my frustrations get the better of me. Having said that though, I was upset at being labelled a racist and would have liked an apology. Most importantly, I apologise for any previous transgressions. I have gone away, served some time and am determined to approach any return from exile in a Madelaesque rather than Trotskyite manner. Parkway28 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you admit to subverting the indefinite block on your account on 12 Feb 2016, you have violated the terms of the standard offer which require you to not evade your block. Therefore, at this time I am declining your unblock request. You are given the WP:standard offer again, which means that you may re-request an unblock of this account after not evading this block for 6 months. (Note: Part of the reason for this decision is based upon your implications here that you would continue to sock after being declined an unblock here: "I think your tone and comments are needlessly threatening but I'd rather crack on with finding factual inaccuracies in your cricket and football pages. Rest assured, I will find them. - Parkway28 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)") — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:13, 2 March 2016 (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.

  • So, you basically admit that you have been evading your block. Can you tell us for how long have you been evading the block? Can you show us the exact edits you made while being blocked? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanjagenije: Thank you for your response. I have been nothing but polite and good-natured all the way through this process as a look at my talk page will testify. I have repeatedly come up against antagonistic and borderline aggression from various moderators and although some have been polite and constructive, some, including you, have been unhelpful and pedantic. I have told you what I changed- I made an article on the 1988 FA Cup final more balanced and accurate. Go and have a look, I talk about Wimbledon in the Southern League and remove some inaccurate ramblings. How did they get past an editor? Why did nobody check them? How did a loose cannon like me spot them? There's a failure in your system somewhere. I have been polite and good-natured, admitted mistakes and served a blocking period. Every time, there's been something else, so forget it, now. I've tried, I've been decent and all I've had in return, is condescending, pedantic responses which neither acknowledge my efforts to state my case rationally, nor even answer my requests. I would really have liked to have engaged in discussion but now I'm actually unfussed about coming back to Wikipedia if this is what it's all about and what is acceptable public relations. I would take a complaint against you further, just because I think your tone and comments are needlessly threatening but I'd rather crack on with finding factual inaccuracies in your cricket and football pages. Rest assured, I will find them. Can you advise me please on what I should do when I find them, please? I look forward to hearing from you. Kindest regards, Parkway28 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Parkway28[reply]

Parkway28

I can accommodate an unblock - you've told me what work you want to do if unblocked, so that's one question already answered. However, I'd want consensus with the blocking administrator, @PhilKnight:, first, and I want you to understand that this time round you must make an effort to get on with others. If somebody accuses me of homophobia or racism, I just think "what an idiot" and ignore them without committing fingers to keyboard, and this is something I recommend you do as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: @PhilKnight: Thank you Ritchie333 for your message and for taking the time to consider my views. I appreciate your help and I will follow your advice and make every effort to make constructive, informative and responsible contributions. I am grateful to you for thinking about this matter and for your time. Kindest regards, Parkway28 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Parkway28[reply]

@Ritchie333:- Ponyo was the blocking admin, I just revoked talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll ask @Ponyo: for comments as well, or we could take the unblock to WP:AN for consensus? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I find a number of things concerning about the unblock request, most specifically the fact that they've been socking during the block and their response to Vanjagenije when he questioned Parkaway about the socking. "I have repeatedly come up against antagonistic and borderline aggression from various moderators and although some have been polite and constructive, some, including you, have been unhelpful and pedantic", "I've been decent and all I've had in return, is condescending, pedantic responses" "I would take a complaint against you further, just because I think your tone and comments are needlessly threatening" followed by what sounds like a threat to continue socking if we don't unblock, with a disingenuous "kind regards" sign-off. I do not support an unblock, though I obviously couldn't stand in the way of one if there was consensus at ANI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: @Ritchie333: @PhilKnight: Whilst, I thank you for taking the time to read through the matter and appreciate your views, I don't think it's fair to say that I've threatened to continue to sock. I said that I would continue to read through different football and cricket pages, which, let's face it, are wide open to partisan abuse, daft-edits and general bias. I then asked what I should do if I find some factual inaccuracies which need editing or removing. I think that's fair enough, it's not a threat to continue but clearly a request for direction. I can accept that the tone of the response might not have been wonderfully accommodating, but I was immensely frustrated at what felt like another piece of nit-picking and pedantry. I had again, been polite and constructive in my request, admitted fault from previous mistakes and stated my case and intentions clearly. I felt that had been ignored and the actual nuts and bolts of the matter had been skirted over in favour of a frivolous, point-scoring, caught-you-out display of power by a moderator. As for being disingenuous, if you were to look back at my posts, that is how I sign them off. That is how I write, that is the way we end our writing in my part of the world. I'm honestly, committed to coming back in a constructive manner, to help out and be positive, I've made that clear and I've been banned for over a year, jumped through enought hoops and would like to be reinstated. I appreciate your time on this matter and help so far. I'm slightly worried about how to sign this off now. So, I'll go for the neutral and traditional 'Cordially', Parkway28 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Parkway28[reply]

  • Vanjagenije made a perfectly civil request for further information about the editing you have made while evading the block. You have responded with absurd accusations of being "threatening", "pedantic", and so on. That does not encourage me to think that you are likely to be able to edit in a collaborative way with editors with whom you disagree if you are unblocked. However, it may be that among the edits you made while evading your block there are examples of you collaborating successfully with other editors: if so, it will help your case if you take up Vanjagenije's invitation to tell us exactly what edits you have made while blocked, as we will be able to see that you are able to get on with other editors. Also, if you give us that information we will be able to see how you have done useful editing, such as how you have "made an article on the 1988 FA Cup final more balanced and accurate". If you have done what you said, then telling us which edits were yours can do nothing but strengthen your case for an unblock, so there is really no good reason for you not to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC*

@JamesBWatson: Thank you for your post and for taking the time to state your opinion. In response to your comments, I think I have already covered my reaction to the post byVanjagenije. I have admitted that perhaps I didn't respond in the most accommodating manner and stated my reasons. I accept that their request was entirely reasonable but also will point out that the tone read like there was an element of point-scoring there, or that was how I interpreted it, I'm happy to stand corrected, if wrong. I have written all through this debate in a polite, constructive manner and have remained civil so I would like to remind you of that once more.I have surely demonstrated an ability to write and communicate with editors in a mature, good-natured way, as this page itself shows. In answer to your question, please look at the 1988 fA Cup Final history. Mine are the most recent edits. There are a few on 12th February, they improve it in a more balanced, factual way. I have also made a change to an article on Schifflange, a town in Luxembourg. I am again the most recent editor on 15th July. I wrote why I changed it too. Since my block, I have spent time away from the editing side of things as my heart wasn't in it for long periods of time. Since I have thought about why I want to return, the desire to get involved again in a constructive and productive way has tempted me out of the cave of editorial despair. I am committed the cause and as a look at this talk page shows, I have spent a great deal of time, pleading my case in a reasonable, polite manner. Thank you for your time, kind regards or cordially, Parkway28.

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

Parkway28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18733 was submitted on Jul 13, 2017 22:35:51. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (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).

Parkway28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm writing to once again request that you please reinstate my editing privilege. I have been in editing exile for a while now and have abided by every condition placed upon me. I would dearly like to return to the editing team and will make a positive contribution to the pages. I have asked for my block to be lifted in the past, only to be agonisingly denied. This time, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to return to the editing family. Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal. Kindest regards, Parkway28

Decline reason:

See below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2017 (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.

Nevermind, I misread "in editing exile" as "editing in exile". Sorry! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: No problem. Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. I would edit your mistake, but I've got that whole exile and banned thing going on. A bit like a latter day Idi Amin, but without the killing and homophobia.

  • After nearly three years I am willing to give you another chance. However, rather than unblocking you immediately I will wait to see whether any other administrators have any opinion to express. In particular, the blocking administrator and other administrators who have declined your earlier unblock requests or commented on them may have something to say, though, in view of the long time that has elapsed, it is likely that some or all of them will have forgotten about you and won't wish to comment. They are Ponyo, Huon, Only, PhilKnight, Ritchie333, and Vanjagenije, not counting one who has since left Wikipedia. (My apologies if I have missed anyone else.) The blocking administrator has said that he won't be around until at least Thursday, Sept 7th, so you may have to wait a little while, but after being blocked for so long a few more days can't be a big deal. However, if your request has not been dealt with by a week or so from now, please feel welcome to ping me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am very skeptical about unblocking this editor. Should they be unblocked, their edits will need to be watched very closely. They seemed to believe that improving articles with some edits would permit them to slip in some vile vandalism with other edits, something they refer to as "frivolous". They have been doing so for years before they got blocked. I just re-checked their edits, and if there was a significant addition or removal of content, chances are it's vandalism, or at best an addition of dubious, unsourced content. This includes multiple football-related articles, a topic Parkway28 has held out as containing his best contributions. To me their comments regarding that disruptive conduct seem rather flippant and dismissive. They have since have described the block as "draconian" and "unfair", as if fairness required "supposed miscreants" who politely apologize to be allowed to continue as if nothing had happened. Huon (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: Given that Parkway28 was vandalising Wikipedia, including repeatedly triggering an abuse filter, via logged-out edits for two hours leading up to this unblock request, I don't support an unblock. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information, Jezebel's Ponyo. In that case, there is obviously no question of unblocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]

While I have redirected you from UTRS back here to make your unblock request, I'll remind you that you need to address the reasons for your block, including your repeated block evasion to continue attacking Wikipedia while blocked. Simply claiming you were blocked six years ago is nowhere near sufficient (especially as you evaded that block, multiple times). --Yamla (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to get back to me. To be fair, I'm done with the whole thing and can't really be bothered to go jumping through any more hoops. My life can go on without buggering about with this nonsense and bonkers indefinite, vanity, power-mad bans dished out from people who seem to revel in their unaccountability. Best of luck with the whole thing in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkway28 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting us know. I've revoked talk page access. If you change your mind, you are free to request reinstatement in order to make an unblock request, via UTRS. I sincerely wish you well, outside of Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parkway28&oldid=1143216839"