User talk:Trundalassk

January 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Baptists 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: Baptists was changed by Trundalassk (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.970366 on 2016-01-18T22:23:55+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Baptists 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. Donner60 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Adventism, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Adventism was changed by Trundalassk (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953252 on 2016-01-18T22:44:14+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Anabaptists.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Anabaptists was changed by Trundalassk (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952582 on 2016-01-18T22:46:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

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).

Trundalassk (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 request be unblocked, I forgot about what I did 8 years ago, but I did go back and check what I had done. I would like to request to be unblocked, and I understand what I had did (vandalism of the pages of Baptist, Adventist, and Anabaptist) was uncalled for and rude and disrespectful. I ask for a second chance. Thank you Trundalassk (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You didn't give a specific example of an edit you plan to make and I'm not comfortable unblocking you to create an entire article, particularly given the concerns raised below. This decline is without prejudice. That means you are free to make a new unblock request and it will be reviewed by a different administrator. That new unblock request should convince the admin that you understand the problem raised below and should include a specific example edit you plan to make to an existing article. Yamla (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2024 (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.

Please give an example edit you plan to make if unblocked. It doesn't have to be multiple paragraphs but it should be non-trivial. --Yamla (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to create a Page about the North American Unitarian Association, as it seems to not exist since it is a group/movement/Denomination of Unitarian Universalism that isn't mentioned on neither the Unitarian Universalist page, nor on the Unitarian Universalist Association page. It is a Denomination/Association that was created by Rev. Todd Eklof in 2021 that has a unique set of principles in comparison to the Unitarian Universalist Association. I am also not affiliated with the NAUA but I am affiliated with the UUA which could make me biased but I felt it was injustice that there wasn't a page or any reference to it on Wikipedia. Trundalassk (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that articles are created because the subject is notable and has received significant coverage in reliable sources and absolutely not because their lack of an article is unjust. And coverage of this offshoot seems to be quite limited. Even if this were a more significant denomination, I'm not sure it's the best idea for you to propose adding content related to a religous denomination given this is the same topic area as all your previous edits, which consisted entirely of quite abhorrent vandalism. My advice to you, given the goal of convincing an administrator to trust you enough to lift your restrictions, would be to voluntarily agree to not post on topics related to religion, broadly construed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]