User talk:Thenabster126
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Thenabster126, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
- Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Please leave wp:edit summaries especially when removing content. Also, see help:referencing for beginners and help:footnotes. If someone leaves a warning on your page, it might be a good idea to address it. You should reply on your page and wp:ping the user such as (for me) {{ping|Jim1138}} "Question: ...?" ~~~~ The notification "{{ping|Jim1138}}" and your signature "~~~~" must be saved (Save page) at the same time or it probably won't work. Jim1138 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thenabster126, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Thenabster126! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
August 2016[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Eazy-E. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Eazy-E. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Akshay Kumar. - Managerarc™ talk 01:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Can I be unblocked please?[edit]
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Attempting to make good faith edits
Accept reason:
- I have unblocked you now. Please try to use edit summaries more frequently in future to avoid misunderstandings. Widr (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
November 2016[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Grover Cleveland. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I did NOT vandalize any pages for any reason.Thenabster126 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit comments[edit]
I just saw your edit comment on Woodrow Wilson. I don't know what went on before, but I'll comment on a few things:
- Making edits without edit comments predisposes reviewers to thinking them malicious.
- Making edits with aggressive comments like Not vandalism. If so, please explain, instead of being a jerk. attracts even more negative attention.
- Adding "his death (date)" to marriage dates is unnecessary and will probably be removed. When a spouse is listed, if there isn't a date for divorce or death, the assumption is that the marriage lasted until the principal died (and that date will already be listed). The exception is when a person has many marriages (e.g., Henry VIII), then indicating specifically which marriage ended with his own death is worthwhile.
Tarl N. (discuss) 02:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Thenabster126 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I was being aggressive. However, Wikipedia has many people who are rude to each other. Thenabster126 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- The point is, your edit comment should describe what you are doing. Saying it isn't something isn't helpful, and making pre-emptive insults will result in aggressive responses. To paraphrase, you reap what you sow. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice.Thenabster126 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. An edit that you recently made to Joseph Stalin seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
AIV[edit]
Please explain your recent reverts at AIV. All of them, during several days. Widr (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm so sorry if I confused anyone. I thought these were true vandalism. I did not mean to ironically pvandalize anything. Thenabster126 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
August 2017[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Criss Angel. Blanking the warning does not remove it from your history. You have been warned multiple times about unsourced edits, you were blocked for it recently, and you made three more unsourced or improperly sourced edits since your level three warning two days ago. Meters (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I sourced it now. The article says he made his "prime time television debut" as a magician in 1994.Thenabster126 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Please tell me what's wrong with the source. I have no malicious intentions, Thenabster126 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Thenabster126. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pashtuns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
January 2018[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.- MrX 🖋 01:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
August 2018[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Attempting to make good faith edits.
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2018 (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.
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I apologize for not sourcing my edits. I was trying to contribute usefully, but forgot to source. I will try to source next time.
Decline reason:
We're going to need more than your assurance that you will "try to source next time", given your editing history. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2018 (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.
- I looked at all of your August edits. Of the nine, one was sourced, eight were unsourced (and one actually removed sources). Why should we believe that this is simply a case of you forgetting to source rather than just a continuation of your normal behaviour? Looking further back in your history it appears that this is your normal editing behaviour. Meters (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I can be forgetful to source things. I usually use my IP address to edit.Thenabster126 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I also feel that I have not been warned suffiecently. I just found out that I was blocked today, with no warnings. Had I been warned/reminded, I would have probably have corrected my mistake.Thenabster126 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are not entitled to a certain number of warnings, or any warnings at all- but this page is loaded with warning notices. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Those warnings were for past mistakes. I never said I was entitled. I just wish that the admin who blocked me has warned me.Thenabster126 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, warnings are not required, especially for behavior that you've already been blocked for in the past. If you are doing the same thing wrong over and over, it appears to others you are not heeding the past warnings and advice. To be unblocked before the end of your block, you will need to do more than merely assure us you will "try to source" next time. You will need to tell what steps you will take to definitely source your edits. If you are so forgetful that you cannot remember to source your additions to articles, you may want to concentrate in an area that doesn't require you to post sources, such as checking for spelling or grammar. If you continue to fail to source your article additions, I think I can safely say that your next block will be much longer than two weeks. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The one in the past was for a different reason: forgetting using an edit summary. Thank you for clearing things up, I guess.Thenabster126 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- You were warned for unsourced edits. I left you level 3 warning on 17 August. You blanked the warning and made more unsourced edits so I left you a level 4 warning. As I said
Blanking the warning does not remove it from your history. You have been warned multiple times about unsourced edits
Apparently the admin who blocked you thought that your past behaviour warranted a block even though you made no more edits after the final warning. I apologize for misreading your block log and and thinking that the 19 August 2016 block was just a few days ago, and I hope that is not why User:Yamaguchi先生 blocked you. Meters (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Meters, Yamaguchi先生, I leave this for you. Thenabster126, twitter is not an acceptable source for that kind of thing. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
How is an official Twitter not a reliable source?Thenabster126 (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Twitter is not usually an independent reliable source, as anyone can claim anything in a tweet. Tweets are not vetted for accuracy or otherwise not subject to editorial control before posting. Claiming to have served in WWII cannot be supported by a tweet, there needs to be some independent confirmation, like military records. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
So when are tweets acceptable sources? If they are not acceptable under any circumstances, then Wikipedia has a lot of cleaning up to do. Thenabster126 (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Guidelines in this area are at WP:TWITTER. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Omid Kordestani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurdish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Thenabster126. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
February 2019[edit]
Hello, I'm RightCowLeftCoast. Your recent edit to the page Template:Asian Americans appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Template:Demographics of the United States. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Template:Asian Americans, you may be blocked from editing. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for that. I was referring to his career as a part of Soul Intent, if that counts.Thenabster126 (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- DAMIT............. THANX - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't mean to spoil it. In other regions, it was revealed. I'd love to get to know you better. You're probably one of the friendliest Wikipedians I've encountered. Thenabster126 (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether the page should be deleted--indeed, if you forced me to give one, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But merely applying the tag is but the first step of a multi-step process, as I noted when I linked WP:AFDHOWTO in my revert. Please either complete the remaining steps, or allow the revert to stand. Thank you. --Finngall talk 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I tried to follow the steps.Thenabster126 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help me with this situationThenabster126 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Exotic pet edit[edit]
Regarding your edit of Exotic pet, please see the discussion on the article's Talk page and in the edit summary comments. There is no consensus for that change – e.g., noobody keeps whales as housepets. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether your addition to the article is true, but you can't stick it in front of a footnote that clearly doesn't support it. Leviticus is the source of the quote, and it doesn't support the phrase you added. You need to cite reliable sources that do support it. (I would recommend citing more than one source, per WP:REDFLAG. Regardless of whether you think the statement is controversial, I think many of the article's regular editors may think it is.)
I would also encourage you to make use of the article's talk page to discuss your change. WP:ONUS says that Wikipedia articles don't have to include every fact related to a subject; if you want to include something, you need to build consensus for it on the article's talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019[edit]
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Criss Angel, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dr. K. 21:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Teapot Dome Service Station, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please take care to actually read the sources you are trying to cite. And make sure they are formatted similar to the article's existing sources. SounderBruce 04:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Race and ethnicity in the United States. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Cristabel0. I wanted to let you know that your edit on Freddie Mercury have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- MrX 🖋 19:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:AE#Thenabster126[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AE#Thenabster126. - MrX 🖋 13:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet of Tarook97[edit]
We might have edited similar articles, but I have never heard of this account until now.Thenabster126 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
April 2019[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chechens; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ST47 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Thenabster126: You appear to be engaged in an edit war on Chechens, but I can't find any evidence that you've discussed the matter on the talk page or on any other method of dispute resolution. Do not continue edit warring on that article. You must bring your suggestions to the talk page, or engage in some other form of dispute resolution, and gain consensus for your changes. If you continue to perpetuate this edit war, you will be blocked. ST47 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
–== April 2019 ==
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)−== Blocked ==
So, back in April, you were edit warring on Chechens and got blocked. You used an IP address to evade that block, and as a result, I blocked you for three months. I see that you're now back to edit warring on Chechens (not to mention starting up the same disputes as before elsewhere, cf Albanians), but that you were also using that IP address to evade my block. You have been blocked indefinitely for IP block evasion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below this message: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Where is your proof that the IP belonged to me? Run a check user. I was trying to add multiple languages for Albanians.
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No evidence of being a sock the second time around. I have apologized for the first time and want to contribute positively to Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.
Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.
Points to ponder:
- Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.
- Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.
- Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.
To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2019 (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.
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Okay, I have acknowledged that I was in the wrong by edit watering. I accept full responsibility for my actions. I should’ve used the talk page.
Decline reason:
Your history of disruption is significant and I don't see any positive outcome in unblocking you at this time. If you attempt to evade the block I expect the block will be modified to an indefinite time period. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:50, 16 July 2019 (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.
Please explain why you regularly log out and use anonymous editing for edit warring and to evade blocks. ST47 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes, I don’t feel like using my account so I edit anonymously. My IP address changes frequently. I don’t intend on doing either of those things. Plus, I travel to places so my IP changes on top of my home IP changing. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding. I feel like I haven’t made myself clear.Thenabster126 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC) I will try to make up for my past misdeeds and correct them. Thenabster126 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- As long as you are blocked you are not allowed to edit using any account or IP. Meters (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I feel I’ve made many mistakes and wish to correct them. I admit I have fought with hostile users and realize that I shouldn’t have gotten involved.Thenabster126 (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This doesn't even mention your specific abuse, let alone attempt to convince anyone the block is inappropriate or no longer appropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2019 (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.
P.S. Meters, I was explaining why I had so many IPs over the years.Thenabster126 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I’ve mentioned what I’ve done before.Thenabster126 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
During my reflection period, I have come to realize that Wikipedia is about teamwork and not winning and that I should come to a consensus. As such, I want to contribute positively without getting into disputes.Thenabster126 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've recently evaded your block. See the standard offer for one way to come back. This requires you to not evade your block or engage in sock puppetry for six months. If you can manage that, we'll consider unblocking you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
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.
I might have not been responsible for that IP this time, but you know what, that seems like a done deal. I was unaware of it. Thank you, User:NinjaRobotPirate Thenabster126 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
And once I do get unblocked (if I do), I want to reform my ways and help stop the hostility that the Wikipedia community faces. I'd love to join an organization or taskforce. But I need your help in doing so, whoever they may be.Thenabster126 (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thenabster126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As per the six month proposition, I have not edited in over a year and would like to review policies again as well as have a Clean start. I promise to avoid what I have done in the past.Thenabster126 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:CHECKUSER indicates that you have continued to edit without logging in in violation of your block. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:43, 25 November 2020 (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.