User talk:Contributor 118,784

June 2023[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to User:Contributor 118,784. 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 your sandbox. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for your note. You are not an administrator. The TheManInTheBlackHat has already removed a previous edit of yours. --Technopat (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, as I thought that userboxes are simply cosmetic. I will refrain from introducing false info into my page. Thank you too

~~~ Contributor 118,784 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Contributor 118,784! Your additions to Catherine McEvoy have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correspondence. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: copyright violation also at Jocelyn Chia. – robertsky (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 34.99.112.0/20. ~~~~}} Contributor 118,784 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (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).

Contributor 118,784 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP is 34.99.112.0/20.

Decline reason:

Confirmed colocation server belonging to Google Cloud. Please disable your proxy/vpn and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2023 (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.

Wrong thing, it's 34.99.125.212. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla. I'm on a county issued chromebook, so I can't disable anything. I do not have a proxy or a VPN.[edit]

Contributor 118,784 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor 118,784: I'm not Yamla (nor an admin, for that matter) but I think maybe if that's the case you can apply for IP block exemption so you wouldn't get caught in a block like this. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 19:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks bro Contributor 118,784 (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to, as it says I didn't complete the 'appealfor' field. I did though. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we got it! Thank you!! Contributor 118,784 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cherry Hill Park (June 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bkissin were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cherry Hill Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Contributor 118,784! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bkissin (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Contributor 118,784 was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to test and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Contributor 118,784 (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cherry Hill Park (June 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please read the above along with this guide for citing sources. Their website is a primary source so should only be used sparingly and does not establish notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cherry Hill Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cherry Hill Park (June 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Again, read through the above guidelines. Tourist sites, commercial sites where they are advertising, standard profiles, etc. do not establish notability. If resubmitted again without substantial improvement the draft maybe rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cherry Hill Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Contributor 118,784! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:15, Wednesday, June 14, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Contributor 118,784!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, S0091 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cherry Hill Park (campground) has been accepted[edit]

Cherry Hill Park (campground), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage[edit]

Hi Contributor 118,784, I'm Primefac. You'll likely not be pleased about this but I have removed some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thank you, and sorry for messing about with your edits! Primefac (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Contributor 118,784!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We're glad to have you.

Getting Started

Tutorial

Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse

Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center

Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Contributor 118,784 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2023 (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).

Contributor 118,784 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't have the slightest clue as to why you believe I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, 331dot. Just today, I created an article. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

The problem with your editing is that you are making false claims about your status as an editor, you have added a block template to the user page of an editor who is not blocked, you're falsifying signatures etc. All of these edits are disruptive and take up the time of other editors and administrators. While you're not expected to know everything about editing from the get go, you are expected to have a certain amount of maturity that would allow you to edit productively. I'm declining this appeal because it doesn't address the disruption caused in the very short time you've been editing; perhaps a more in depth appeal explaining how you understand how such edits are disruptive could be accepted. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 14 June 2023 (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.

Here you impersonated an admin telling another user that they were blocked, here you falsified a signature, you issued a welcome message to me even though I've been here 11 years, how do these things help build the encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see in your edit history where you created an article. Maybe I missed it. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article I made can be accessed here. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, I was testing the thing out. Number two, I can't falsify a signature if it's literally mine. Number three, I was just welcoming you, sir. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did miss the article. And I think I misinterpreted the signature situation- but can you see how it is very unwise to tell another user that they were blocked, even as a test? 331dot (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, I can see that now. But please, can I be unblocked? Many thanks. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You took an edit made by S0091 and modified the signature to make it look like you'd sent it to yourself. You can't do that.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that, Ponyo? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that you can't falsify signatures?? This should be common sense. You cannot replace the signature of an editor with your own to make it look like you're the one who made the post. Again, I'm concerned that you don't currently have the maturity to be able to edit here effectively. I honestly thought you might post another appeal that would promise to slow down and review various policies and guidelines, but your responses here and in your second appeal just solidify my belief that you may not be ready to edit here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, i'm sorry, alright? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the last time I checked, it was a template. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant. You think you're being clever, but you're not.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being clever, i'm just stating that you're not being reasonable. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To any reviewing admin, I'm okay with an unblock without consulting me first if you are convinced this user will be productive. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'you are making false claims about your status as an editor, you're falsifying signatures etc.'

but at the same time you said

'I did miss the article. And I think I misinterpreted the signature situation- but can you see how it is very unwise to tell another user that they were blocked, even as a test?' Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2023 (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).

Contributor 118,784 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yet again, here we are. You literally admitted you were wrong, but STILL blocked me. What's going on, dot? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Disruption and wikilawyering. User does not show the competence or willingness to edit productively here stemming from day one at the teahouse. Star Mississippi 02:06, 15 June 2023 (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.

Instead of addressing me, address the admin who will review your request. Please do as Ponyo asked above. I'm actually less sure I misinterpreted the signature issue, but impersonating an admin is enough to block you. I've already said another admin is free to unblock you if they feel you will be productive. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Contributor 118,784,

You've caused a fair amount of disruption considering that you have only been editing for two days. I can see why a block was issued as you were treating Wikipedia like a game and we don't play around here. You won't be unblocked unless you take some responsibility for the screw-ups and state that you won't do any of these stunts in the future. Admins are very busy and they don't want to have to monitor your work to make sure you are abiding by the rules. And I can tell you after 9 years here that blaming your block on other people will result in a quick decline, even if mistakes were made. You should really review guide to appealing blocks and take it seriously before you post another unblock request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you create other accounts while you are blocked, you will never be unblocked. Please do not sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. THank you for your guidance.Contributor 118,784 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2023 (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).

Contributor 118,784 (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 start this appeal off by apologizing for the mistakes I have made yesterday. I have thoroughly read the policies and guidelines and understood my wrongdoings, and I have learned my lesson and promise to help the encyclopedia, not ruin it. Thank you. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think it's too soon to consider lifting the block. You've been significantly disruptive. I think I'd like to see several months of trouble-free editing on another wiki before I'd be comfortable unblocking you here. Other admins may feel differently. Yamla (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2023 (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.

Concur with 331dot, happy for someone else to consider this if they think the editor will be a productive. Star Mississippi 12:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla What do you mean by 'on another wiki'? And plus, my block is set to 'indefinite'. Please advise. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of other wikis. Pick one that appeals to your interests and edit there, without problems, for several months. And yes, your block is indeed indefinite. We already knew this, I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. --Yamla (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correspondence Contributor 118,784 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, and haven't found any wikis that I would enjoy; Wikipedia is the only one I enjoy.

Perhaps something else can be done? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it says 'You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.'

Am I blocked forever or blocked temporarily?

Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be unblocked but you are free to contest your block and another admin will review your request. You are blocked indefinitely. There's no end date. The block will not expire but must be successfully contested. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, I wonder why it says that..

Do I submit another appeal now, or is there someone I can talk to? Thank you.

Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit another appeal now if you wish. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (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).

Contributor 118,784 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After thorough consideration, I believe that I should be unblocked as I have learned my lesson. I recognize that adding a block template to another Wikipedian's talk page is not within the behavioral guidelines, nor is it a good idea in any way, shape, or form. Following my hopeful unblock, I will make constructive edits to the Encyclopedia, and perhaps make a couple articles. Once again, I apologize for my behavior, and I do hope that the administrator reading this realises that. Many thanks. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not enough time to show any indication they learned their lesson, combined with impatience in waiting for appeal to be reviewed. Contributor, please build a track record editing at another project and then come back here once you have demonstrated that. Continued unblock requests at this rapid pace will lead to you losing talk page access. Star Mississippi 00:04, 16 June 2023 (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.

Hi Contributor 118,784, I suggest first taking some time to read through the information linked in the Welcome message, paying special attention to Policies and Guidelines along with WP:TPNO and WP:TPO then constructing an unblock request that outlines some of what you have learned, how you will change your behavior and how you plan to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, and once again, thank you for your assistance in the creation of Cherry Hill Park (campground). Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also thank you for being so understanding and kind. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This still active or no? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, there are no other projects I enjoy. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there's no real path forward for you here I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I did all of this for nothing? There has got to be something else I can do. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I've barely been here a month! Contributor 118,784 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here four days.

I would support @Primefac's goals below, and can see a path where you could potentially edit articles. However you can work on video games, technology, etc. elsewhere as well. I would recommend taking a few minutes to understand what projects there are besides English Wikipedia where these topics exist. Star Mississippi 13:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor 118,784, I agree with Star Mississippi and Primefac. You seem enthusiastic about editing here, albeit your short lived tenure as an editor was contentious. I suggest you try editing the Simple English Wikipedia then come back here when you have made substantial constructive contributions there. Alternatively, when you are unblocked maybe I or another editor can be your mentor to help set you on a right path. Best, -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 13:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will! Contributor 118,784 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, what does 'substantial' mean? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the amount, just focus on quality. Forget about this project while you do and see how you can improve their content. Star Mississippi 14:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help, Star. :) Contributor 118,784 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi

Do you know when I should re-appeal? I've made two pages on Simple Wikipedia. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor 118,784 as I said forget about this project for a while. You need a productive history in order to be unblocked here. That doesn't happen within several hours. Star Mississippi 15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you Star! Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does 'a while' mean 3-4 days? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, more like 4-5 months. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 15:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. So, to clarify further, all I do is make constructive edits to the other Wikipedia, and in 4 months I'll be unblocked depending on how it goes? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you'd then be able to apply for the standard offer. That several month tenure would hopefully show that your four days here were the exception. And I'll remind you of what @Liz said above, no socking either. Star Mississippi 16:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. I have an alt for my PC at the beach, does it count as socking if I don't use it? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

declare it, and do not use it or that account will also be blocked. Star Mississippi 16:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the username, though I promise not to use it. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, if I got covered by my school news network, could I get an article? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, unless you get significant coverage by several other major reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times, The Economist). But then again you shouldn't really write an article about yourself as it is higly discouraged (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for more info). -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 17:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks for all that you do, sir! Contributor 118,784 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor, in the future there's no need to call me "sir" or anything; you can just call me "Prodraxis" and I actually prefer it that way. :) (plus I'm not even a dude, I go by she/her pronouns) By the way we should start a new thread - this is getting too long and bloated. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my Lord, i'm sorry. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs (she/her) 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contributor 118,784 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward[edit]

Hi Contributor, I posted on your talk page a few days ago, and noticed the block and subsequent interactions with the other admins. I know this is me stating the obvious, but being blocked sucks, and it's definitely frustrating when it's not overly clear what needs to be done to overcome that issue. So let's start it simple, I've just got a few questions:

Why do you want to edit Wikipedia?
What sort of pages or subjects are you interested in?

I think if you can demonstrate that you really do have the best interest of the project at heart, we can probably work something out. That being said, I'm just looking to start a discussion, so let's worry about the block later and have a chat for now. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I want to edit Wikipedia as it makes me happy, because I've always wanted to help people, and it's fun. I really enjoy the Cherry Hill Park page, and subjects like video games, history, and technology. What about you? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention userboxes, which are cool. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac

Are you busy? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was busier than expected this weekend and wasn't able to keep up on my watchlist. My apologies. It looks like you've started some very productive discussions. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine, Primefac. And yes, indeed. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

new thread[edit]

Anyways. What's it like being a Wikipedia admin? @Prodraxis

Contributor 118,784 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor 118,784 I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. However, I am an extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer and rollbacker. I've only been editing for 3 1/2 months anyway so I don't have the experience to become an admin either. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs (she/her) 20:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So, you're LIKE an admin but without the powers? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only have some access to a couple of user rights for slightly more experienced users that allow them to mitigate vandalism better. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs (she/her) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Is it hard? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it isn't that hard. Once you learn how to fight vandalism it gets easier over time. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs (she/her) 01:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Do you know how I can make a wiki that's like this and not like Fandom? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't know. But I'm sure there's a way. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs (she/her) 00:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Man oh man, does it SUCK being blocked. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern,

Please accept this letter as formal notification that I am resigning from my position as a contributor with Wikipedia. Thank you so much for the opportunity to work in this position for the little time I did. I’ve greatly enjoyed and appreciated the opportunities I’ve had to grow Wikipedia, be a part of creating a great product, and work with my colleagues. I wish Wikipedia continued success, and I hope all goes well.

Sincerely, Contributor 118,784 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved here, but you can always partake in the Simple English Wikipedia and try to edit constructively over there. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fakescientist8000 they are blocked there too. S0091 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 Oh, brother... Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 17:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, S0091 Contributor 118,784 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now just gonna purge the entire thing,. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And uh, @Primefac, thank you for trying your best to rehabilitate me, however it seems that I am unable to be rehabilitated. Gonna start my own wiki. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let this be a glaring lesson to anyone here: *please* wait until you're mentally mature before rummaging around on the wiki... Five unblock requests in 8 days! Ap m h 18:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that I'm not mentally mature? Sure seems like you are. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Star Mississippi 20:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough. UTRS remains available, but @Contributor 118,784 I strongly caution you against being disruptive there as editors' patience is not infinite. Star Mississippi 20:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #76247[edit]

is closed. Not eligible for unblock consideration till December 23, 2023. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]