User talk:Srj.cooldude

Welcome!

Hello, Srj.cooldude, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This was my concern with your replies on Love jihad page. There is absolutely no neutrality in the way the page is presented instead it was outrigtly hinduphobic and turning a blind eye to real concerns and issues by dismissing it as conspiracy theory. Where is neutrality in this? It's ironic that you refer to neutrality page. It is you who needs to refer it more. Love jihad coverup is similar to the London grooming gangs coverup. The need for truth without bias is the first step towards ensuring justice. By being biased in favouring jihadi s and dismissing love jihad as just a conspiracy and Islamophobia you're promoting violence, promoting terrorism. Srj.cooldude (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPA, WP:TRUTH, and WP:WGW EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF

Your posts from Talk:Love jihad have been deleted previously by RegentsPark but in case the reasoning wasn't clear enough, I'll spell it out: If you continue to cast aspersions and accusing other editors of being biased in favouring jihadi..., promoting violence, promoting terrorism, or posts incendiary comments like this or this, you will be topic-banned or blocked from editing wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How do you explain bias without using the word bias? Please elaborate. How do you deal with editors who are biased, I quoted a reference from Times of India, but that was rejected stating not credible source but the same page has 24 references from Times of India. If this is not bias, what is?

It's not just me, vast majority of neutral observers find the page extremely biased towards extremists, the tone of voice in the page is also filled with one sided view, you can find several posts with the same view. Srj.cooldude (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose specific additions/changes to the articles based on reliable sources (and IMO, the case would be stronger if you present scholarly sources rather than media reports or youtube videos but that eventually has to be decided through talk-page discussion). And you can use the appropriate noticeboards or dispute reolution processes to invite broader input. But what you absolutely cannot do, is accuse other editors of being biased, having an agenda, promoting terrorism, supporting jihadis etc just because they have a different opinion than yours. Let me know if you have any other questions. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If media reports or youtube videos aren't allowed then why allow it for other sections at all. Why are media reports allowed selectively from the same source? That report clearly states about NIA chargesheet on love Jihad so it was rejected.

As a source of information for millions, Wikipedia should be the source for unbiased knowledge, that is what I ultimately want. But unfortunately Wikipedia is not entirely free from bias, here's a report on Adani sponsored Wikipedia editors who were later banned. https://thewire.in/media/adani-group-wikipedia-articles. Very sadly such bias still exists in across several pages in Wikipedia.

This is not a matter of having a difference on opinion. This is about creating a wrong narrative by ignoring facts and real events, brushing aside any valid source with unjustifiable reasons but glorifying and vilifying a certain community without any reference or source. For example this line: "notions based on the assumption that the Hindu women are possessions of men, whose purity is defiled as an equivalent to territorial conquest, and hence need to be controlled and protected from Muslims" What is the source for this line? Why is this allowed?

There is absolutely no source for this view. But it is allowed but any source that is against this narrative is rejected even if it is a credible source. Which is why naturally anyone would suspect the bias. Srj.cooldude (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep it short:

• If you have specific concerns about an article content: discuss it (with sources) at the article talkpage or use the appropriate dispute resolution process.
• If you have specific concerns about a particular editor: report it (with evidence in the form of diffs) at WP:ANI but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG

Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I have already raised multiple concerns in the talk page and have seen concerns raised by other users but all efforts are in vain. Any opinion opposing the view is rejected. Srj.cooldude (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you read WP:DR that I linked to twice above?

And to give some specific pointers: With regards to your latest talkpage post, editors are more likely to be responsive if you:

1. Don't start with a assumption of bad-faith,
2. Don't seem to order them around by making "demands",
3. Show some indication that you had at least tried to read the scholarly references appended to the statement you are objecting to and found that they don't adequately support the article claim, and
4. Don't end your post with a rhetorical flourish about what the wikipedia article allegedly does to the "entire Hindu community".

This is a collaborative project and fewer, calmer, more-measured posts directed at, say, your professional colleagues rather than adversaries are likely to be more effective. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I find the page Love Jihad has broken too many don'ts already. I'd suggest you to look into it too. Srj.cooldude (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Isn't WP:BOOMERANG part of WP:SHOT, which is an essay, not even an Explanatory essay? So it can't be cited as a Policies and Guidelines. Crainsaw (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Direct link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Srj.cooldude_and_Love_jihad EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, it is not just my view there is a huge audience discussing how biased this page is, you've just helped me further to prove my point by blocking. So thank you. Srj.cooldude (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You've just proven me right anyone opposing your view is blocked. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There was only discussions on talk page which doesn't count as edits. But ofcourse I don't wish to contribute anyway so absolutely no intention to appeal with arrogant facists with an agenda to propagate only their personal views and cite only sources that conforms to their view point and dismiss all. Srj.cooldude (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It's quite hypocritical of flag bearers of free speech to silence and block someone with a different view point than theirs and put a label of fringe even while supporting the Islamist to dismiss any terror related incident as Islamophobia. Clearly there's bias and favouritism, it's also noteworthy that your editors called me a zombie and no action taken. Clearly evident partiality and intolerance.  Srj.cooldude (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

When I raised objection to "Hindu women as possessions" section is Hinduphobic. Instead of considering to revise. It has been now duplicated in two places now. One in the first introduction and now under a new section in the body. "Reliance on tropes"

Why so? Quite clearly proving my allegations true that there is bias. Srj.cooldude (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear admin, I request you to be impartially check if there is bias in the page Love Jihad. The user Iskandar323 has a history of editing pages critical of islam. You can see the talk page on Muslim conquests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iskandar323#Muslim_conquests The editor quoted his edits as "The way you are undertaking this seems like a campaign, that you are not interested in discovering consensus, but just imposing your point of view".

I'm humbly asking you to have a neutral view and take appropriate action on the way Love Jihad page is edited, I'm not even asking you to unblock me. Just make sure the page Love Jihad is not exclusively pushing the voice of certain people who favour islam. Srj.cooldude (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in here and let any passing admins know that, while we have been at odds in the past, Iskandar is one of the best, least biased editors I have seen in my Wikipedia career. Any allegations against him are preposterous and i have always seen him act in good faith compliance with policy. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Note to admins: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Googleguy007#c-Abecedare-20230504172700-WP:BATTLEGROUND_conduct_at_Talk:Love_Jihad Srj.cooldude (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I find it quite suspicious that a blocked editor is apparently actively using Wikipedia enough to both see my comment within 30 minutes and be aware of a warning on my talk page, this reeks of sock puppetry. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably you're unaware, when you leave a comment on my talk page, I do get email alerts and I can view Wikipedia just like any normal user. Your accusations is unsubstantiated and baseless. Srj.cooldude (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that you have no freedom of speech here. See WP:FREESPEECH. --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I was not aware. Thanks for letting me know. Srj.cooldude (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Moderators, I am writing to you today to request an unblock of my account on Wikipedia. I've been a contributor since 13 years. I regret the actions that led to my account being blocked, and I understand now that my behavior was not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would like to clarify that my previous decision not to appeal was based on my mistaken belief that Wikipedia moderators are biased and not open to hearing from users who have been blocked. However, I have since come to understand that this is not the case, and I now appreciate the efforts that the moderators make to ensure that Wikipedia remains a fair and impartial platform for all users and I am confident that the moderators will give me the opportunity to explain myself and that they will make their decision based on a fair and impartial assessment of the situation I realize that my lack of understanding of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines & lack of understanding of how editors work has led to the events which got my account being blocked, and I am sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere regret for any harm that my actions may have caused and to assure you that it was never my intention to violate any of Wikipedia's policies. I want to assure you that my behavior was not intentional, and I did not realize at the time that my actions were considered disruptive editing. I was merely engaged in a discussion on a talk page which I accept could have been handled more tactfully. I would also like to request an opportunity to explain myself and to demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia's rules and guidelines in the future. I believe that I can be a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia community, and I am willing to work with the moderators to ensure that my contributions are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you for considering my request, and I hope to have the opportunity to demonstrate my commitment to contributing positively to the Wikipedia community Srj.cooldude (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please write your own unblock request; when it's this obviously written by some or another chatbot, your chances of being unblocked drop dramatically. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

. Srj.cooldude (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment - To any reviewing admins, I'd like to point out that 1Firang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) coincidentally started editing after Srj.cooldude's block and appears to be pushing the same POV as Srj.cooldude. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2023

 Unrelated based on technical data. That doesn't rule out WP:MEAT, but there's no technical data tying these two accounts together. --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Admins I'm a contributor to Wikipedia since 2010. I express sincere regret in the events that led to my account block. I admit that I lacked clarity on many issues pertaining to how editors work and how reliable sources are selected.

For instance I referred to a source TOI which was already used as a source 24 times in the same page, however when this same source was rejected, I was confused as well as questioned the motive behind the rejection, I initially found it hard to understand and hence I expressed my dissatisfaction in a way which was not in-line with the rules of Wikipedia, and further I did make some personal remarks which was again a wrong way to express dissent (due to the lack of understanding about how or where to express concerns), however some of my criticism were not specifically directed to any one particular user but to the entire content in the page which is made up of contributions from several editors, hence those specific criticism shouldn't be attributed to just a single user, this may have been misunderstood, I express my sincere regret if my comments hurt anyone. Until yesterday I was also not ware about Nofreespeech policy of Wikipedia. In some cases where my remarks targeted specifically to one user I accept my conduct could have been better, I should have used a better tone of language and the appropriate dispute resolution process. I also have come to understand the importance of referring to scholarly sources.

Regarding disruptive editing. I was unaware that having discussion in the talk page and actual editing was same and equally considered disruptive editing. My assumption was that the talk page was only for discussions and would not attract penalty for disruptive editing, still I now realise I initiated too many discussion in quick succession without much thought which would have been inconvenient to other contributors. Let me confess that this was an innocent mistake without much thought or ill intentions. I will keep this in mind. The eventual turn of events after my blocking ; inaction on the user who accused me of being islamophobic while I was blocked led me to believe that the bias exists without any regard for Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Which is why I initially decided not to appeal my block. However I have since then come to understand that there are systems that are in place in Wikipedia to deal with such incidents through appropriate channels and how the moderators and admins work diligently to make sure the platform is impartial to all users and I am confident that the moderators will give an opportunity for me to explain myself and make my points and that they will make their decision based on a fair and impartial assessment of the case. If given an opportunity, I would like to contribute to Wikipedia community by working with moderators and diligently follow the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with commitment to the Wikipedia's principles with neutrality, civility and respect towards co-contributors. I appreciate your time and thank you for considering my appeal.

Sincerely Srj.cooldude Srj.cooldude (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm afraid your original fluff-filled unblock request has created a bad impression; I too came here to decline it as obviously a) insincere, b) created by ChatGPT or similar, though jpgordon forestalled me. (I notice you don't deny b) when jpgordon charges you with it.) Looking now instead at this new unblock request, it still strikes me as a remarkable turnaround after your remarks about arrogant facists with an agenda to propagate only their personal views a mere three days ago. What epiphany came to you in between, to convince you that the arrogant fascists actually work diligently to make sure the platform is impartial to all users? I'm sorry, but unless you have some better explanation than a mere belief that you catch more flies with honey (flattery) than with vinegar (attacks), I can't assume good faith here. Compare the essay Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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 request 3

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Adding my reply comments here since reply comments is not working in the previous appeal comments section.

1. Reply to comment was not allowed for me to reply to the comments left by the admin on the 1st appeal for me write anything as a reply denying the charge "taking help from someone to write". When I clicked on full page editor, there was no reply comment option either. So I didn't get any chance . Everything I wrote was 100% my original and no third person or tools used, it's extremely sad to see entire appeal rejected on mere suspicion of chatbot disregarding the points raised in it, I also felt that the my first appeal didn't have my elaborate description of the the turn of events which lead to my block, I felt it was basic like a formal apology without going into the details and I was already in the process of revising and rewriting it but it got rejected before I could update the 1st appeal with description) so I submitted the fresh appeal within the next hour which I was already writing(Revising to edit 1st appeal) while previous appeal was being reviewed. Also I'm first writing my text in the notepad and copy pasting it into the editor. Is this the reason? My initial decision to not appeal had an influence of this video where there was a live example https://youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA&feature=youtu.be

2. Reply to Remarks on Epiphany: a) As mentioned in my 2nd appeal I decided not to appeal at first since it seemed like while I was punished with an indefinite block, no action was taken on the other user who ridiculed me and called me Islamophobic, giving me an impression of partiality and lack of fairness. However I later discovered that the admin had left a remark on his talk page and If I have a complaint I need to take it up at the appropriate platform ANI and actions are not automatic which changed my initial impression and restored faith in administrators. Also after I was blocked, the hinduhobic line which I raised concern about was copied in two places (newly added in body) instead of addressing it.

b) Few days later I also noticed there was a healthy discussion on my concern on the lovejihad talk page and it has addressed some of my concerns and changes are made since my block, which again restored my faith in the moderators and urged me to consider the appeal. (So my first decision was based on lack of understanding on how the Wikipedia works, now I understand)

c) Another reason I didn't initially appeal was because I assumed that it is going to be same set of people(Not admin) who are going to read my appeal and make decisions on my appeal, However after reading through more on wikipedia appeal policy and understanding how the appeal process works I understood it's going to be a different administrator who is not involved with the incidents who is going to impartially review the appeal. Also getting an account I was using since 2010(13 years) was very disappointing hence I realised I made such bad remarks in the heat of the moment. I followed the advice on the appeal guide page Keep your mind calm and assume good faith on the part of our experienced administrators Now I fully understand the reason why I was blocked and having learnt the repercussions, I will not repeat it and I will make productive contributions instead.

d) Also my initial notion from talk page was that anybody with opposing views is immediately rejected & dismissed by majority editors who have different point of view or opposing users are blocked, hence the assumption that appeal is also not going to be viewed impartially so it wouldn't be worth appealing, however this has since changed after carefully going through multiple talk pages and now I understand this isn't the case. Also realising that my concern about the line on lovejihad page has been address which changed my view.

e) Another admin pointed out that I cannot invoke freedom of speech in Wikipedia. WP:FREESPEECH . Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression Considering this fact I realised my conduct was not appropriate and wrong.

Hence I humbly request you to consider my appeal and unblock me, I am concerned that this type of action may deter new contributors from making meaningful contributions fearing account block. I will make positive contribution to the community and behave with civility and respect towards co-contributors.

Srj.cooldude (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After being notified of sanctions in this topic (in general, the conflict between India and Pakistan), you accused people of "promoting violence, promoting terrorism", "whitewashing love jihad", a "shameless act of defending terrorists", and being "arrogant fascists". Choose a different topic to edit. I don't think you should be let back into topics about the conflict between India and Pakistan. If you want to edit articles about Belgian comic books, Asian mountain ranges, or migratory patterns of birds, I'd say that's fine. You'll probably be able to avoid calling people fascists in those topics. If all you want to do is argue with people online about conspiracy theories, we're not interested in having you contribute to our website. We posted that notification on your talk page so you'd know that we're tired of dealing with this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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 request 4

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have already clarified and will not do that again. I accept your suggestion to chose to edit a different topic but here I have been banned to edit anything at all. I do agree that my difference of opinion could have expressed much more mildly and in a constructive discussion. It would have been okay to have topic banned (I'd have happily moved on and contributed on other pages) or banned for a few months but I was indefinitely banned. Regarding my remark about "terrorism" or "whitewashing love jihad". As reported in the multiple media reports there are verified cases of ISIS using love jihad to recruit women from the state of kerala in India. There are numerous confirmed cases with FIR and NIA chargesheet(Famous being Nimisha Fathima, Sonia Sebastian, Merin Jacob), I was putting forward my points based on this knowledge, however any such a discussion on talk page was met with extreme resistance or rejected or me being called islamophobic. Hope you will try to see things from my perspective for once. I'm very much here to contribute to all wikipedia pages where-ever I can add value and not exclusively here for the controversial pages and have been doing that since 2010. It would have been fine to have topic banned unfortunately that is not the case. Also I have been following the Admin noticeboards where admins have unbanned user who have abused with the word "fuck you" and got unbanned in first appeal with a simple sorry(I couldn't find the direct link as this was between may 2-8 and old links are unavailable), so I still don't understand how appeal process really works or if I'm doing a good job of clarifying myself. Despite my repeated assurance and clarifications it hurts to see you still consider me a threat. How can I raise ANI case against the user who called me islamophobic while I'm banned? Also I reiterate I am concerned that this type of action may deter new contributors from making meaningful contributions fearing account block, for a healthy discussion it is necessary to have both opposing and supporting views. Absolute ban despite multiple clarification definitely sends a wrong message to those who want to contribute positively. (I just saw how the Love jihad talk page has removed every past discussion which had difference of opinion or had sources of opposing opinion). Also I'd suggest you to read the public discussion in the comment section of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA&feature=youtu.be Or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYBBEaoJT-s While Wikipedia doesn't have to care about public opinion, the new contributors do. This kind of action is only going make people disinterested to join as contributors. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I do not see any indication that the "guide to appealing blocks" link has been followed. It is up to the person who was blocked to show they can understand and implement written advice. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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.