User talk:JTZegers/Archives/2021/May

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

"Admin" work[edit]

You don't seem to have gotten my point. Somehow you erroneously tagged Powertrain for speedy deletion twice in the past ten minutes, as part as your attempt to merge/move it with Drivetrain. You should start to improve articles by writing prose and adding references; suggesting a merge does makes some sense, but is only helpful if you know how to propose it correctly.

I would strongly recommend you uninstall Twinkle for the next month. The "admin" things it lets you do are largely a trap. You're not the only person who gets confused by various definitions of "admin"; I may need to write an essay to make it clearer. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: Ok, I get the point, but I was just trying to merge that page into DRIVEtrain per proposal. JTZegersSpeak
Aura 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Mistakes happen, and Drivetrain/Powertrain are articles with plenty of potential for improvement. One note (as you already noticed): either indent your comments on talk pages (with ":" or "*"), or leave a blank line. If you do not, the text will run together. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力:Ok, you reverted another edit that had to do with me speedy deleting a page to merge it. How do I merge it now?JTZegersSpeak
Aura 20:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said to avoid "admin" work; there are really 30 or 40 project-space pages on policy you need to read first. In general, you can guess by writing the word you want in capital letters; WP:MERGE should have all the information you need. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力:Ok, so because I didn't read WP:MERGE, you undid the merge. Ok then. I won't remerge it because that's called edit warring which is a VIOLATION! Then I turn into the bad guy! JTZegersSpeak
Aura 20:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I "undid" the merge because you did it wrong, and for other reasons I just noted on the talk page, yes. (I agree the pages should be merged). If you're adding CSD tags instead of redirects, and apparently unknowingly removing content from articles, I will undo it day and night. Remember, you're trying to improve the encyclopedia, not just trying to score points through un-reverted edits. This is why I said to avoid "admin" things. If you write new content in an article, people should just build on it. If you get "admin" things wrong, you just get reverted. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: Ok, next time, I promise I will merge it properly.JTZegersSpeak
Aura 20:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully. Feel free to restore the table on List of production battery electric vehicles so long as you don't remove a bunch of EVs from the page completely (it's called a merge, not a replace). I am retiring for the evening, good night. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力:Well if it wasn't reverted, then I definitely did it right! I'll put the table back.JTZegersSpeak
Aura 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力:-Ok, last thing that went wrong today: I just got a warning from a bot about the AfD close that happened earlier. No big deal, I know now.JTZegersSpeak
Aura 21:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I got blocked because something else went wrong under my control, and now I’m trying to get unblocked because I didn’t think that was fair. User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 15:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on edits like [1] I think you don't want to be helped. I told you multiple times, as clearly as possible, that you shouldn't be doing things like requesting speedy deletions. You also should know that waiting 1 hour (and ignoring my comment on the talk page) isn't how "consensus" is determined.
I'm not sure I can trust you enough to support another chance. I'm certain that I don't have the patience to mentor you. I don't think it's technically possible to just unblock you from 3 or 4 articles, but if it were, I would suggest that is the best way forward. Good luck. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@力: It's OK, I was just too fixated on the merge and it went horribly wrong. The good news is, I finally uninstalled Twinkle and XfD closer because those were clearly causing these problems.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 16:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello,

Please see an Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents discussion about you that I have raised here. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive editing, even while an ANI thread about your disruptive editing in still going on.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

JTZegers/Archives/2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason why I was blocked was because terrible things happened under my control and I didn't have the proper judgement to fix them. I should have known better, and I tried so hard to fix, but I got myself into a bigger hole. And now I'm suffering. I promise that I will do better in the future. In the meantime, I'll finally get rid of Twinkle and XfD closer because those are clearly causing these types of problems.

Another issue that was brought up was that I was asked to change my signature and the new one makes me look like an admin. So it's a little confusing. So I changed it to this:User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 18:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remain committed to trying to improve Wikipedia, and I am still completely convinced that we are an improving source of information. And I will not let that get shattered by the pain of reverts or ugliness of disruptive edits and vandalism any more. I have read all advice and understood what they meant. So I desperately wish for another chance and I will make things right.

Accept reason:

Per discussion of restrictions below.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your multiple screw-ups at the recent merge discussion you "closed", even while there is an ANI thread about your poor discussion closures is going on, lead me to believe you just don't understand what you are doing wrong. Too many people are expending too much time and energy following you around, cleaning up your mistakes. Being new is one thing; being new and not listening to people with advice is another. You're going to need to convince an admin that you will stop being disruptive. That is a tall order. If there are people willing to help you do that, they are welcome to talk to you here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your question: wanting to help is not enough. You must also be competent enough to help. A really large part of that is listening to people who are explaining what you are doing wrong. You are not doing that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:Ok I'll listen. And for starters, I actually did know what I did wrong. I tried to undo it before you blocked me. User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 15:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to enough. You've said that before. Personally, I don't think you should be unblocked until you've demonstrated some measure of better judgement, but if people think there is hope for you to start editing productively, they are welcome to discuss this with you here, and try to come up with ironclad topic restrictions, and help you write a convincing unblock request that another admin will believe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam:I'm trying to, but they keep getting me in trouble. Plus, there actually was a concensus.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 15:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the reason you keep getting in trouble is because other people are trying to help you - if you think even 1% of the problem is anyone other than you - then I don't think Wikipedia is for you. That's just 100% wrong. A lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to help, you continually ignore them, and now you blame them? How depressingly ungrateful and disrespectful. Shame on you. --Floquenbeam (talk)
@Floquenbeam:I actually have potential if I don't keep screwing up. I was actually the main part of the problem, and I shouldn't have done that during my impeachment. My apologies.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 15:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floq, I now suspect you're right. To repost what I just said in ANI, "*Amended position - given their actions, followed by but they [editors helping JTZ] keep getting me in trouble, strongly support that "regular cluebat is insufficient" position. I'd be inclined towards something along the lines of "indefinite restriction to manual editing and talk page discussions" - no closing, no auto-tools, and no participation in project space except for things like help pages etc". Obviously I won't be the one reviewing the unblock request, but you've demonstrated 3 major issues: poor judgement, inability to listen to advice, inability to assess where responsibility lies. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: And I’ll fix that! The point I’m trying to make is that that was the only place where I was being “disruptive” per say, besides that AfD and the other one, and I think this block is unfair.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 15:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict)x2 JTZegers, IMO a good way to get this lifted and move forward isn't just to commit to learning about closing discussions, etc. before closing them, but to commit to working on the basics (i.e. improving articles). Earning the trust of fellow contributors typically requires at least one of (a) excellent judgment or (b) high-quality content contributions. There's not a great deal of leeway given to even well-meaning people if they don't do much work to improve articles directly, and don't exhibit great judgment in other areas. My recommendation would be to commit to focusing on article improvement for the next, say, 3 months. Check out the namespace totals pie chart here and make that red slice bigger (but without relying on tools/scripts to inflate the number). Just my opinion, though. I hate to see a new user with energy to help out blocked, but also understand why it's necessary sometimes. Keep in mind that many now well respected, prolific contributors began making similar mistakes. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites:Well, I'm doing that right now. The reason why I was blocked was because terrible things happened under my control and I didn't have the proper judgement to fix them. I should have known better, and I tried so hard to fix, but I got myself into a bigger hole. And now I'm suffering. I promise that I will do better in the future, but for now, I'm trying to show my regrets.

Update: I just realized that was a pretty good unblock request.

User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododentrites:The good news is I just uninstalled Twinkle and XfD closer so I could focus more on improving articles when I'm unblocked.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 16:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's good, also commit to changing your signature to remove the color (regardless of whether you meant it to simulate an admin or not), submitting to a CheckUser to make us sure you're not a long-term troll with a new account, and staying the Hades away from any discussions whatsoever and devoting exclusively to content work.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There must be cause for suspecting sockpuppetry (the disruption + the choice of signature color may be cause), my understanding is that user agreement can never be cause for a CU. In other words, users are not allowed to "submit" to a checkuser. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I was just trying to have a turn of phrase.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @John M Wolfson:Alright, it's been changedUser:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 16:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Christ, now it's too dark for the username text to be legible. With that combined with how you inappropriately changed the indentation syntax and your neglecting to address my other points, now I'm convinced you are a troll. Good luck getting unblocked with whoever will deal with you, because it isn't me.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @John M Wolfson: Whoops, I didn't realize that. I'm sorry, I'm not a troll. I actually read what you said, it’s just that personal things sometimes gets in the way. User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 17:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)![reply]
            • Also, @John M Wolfson: and @Rhododentrites:, I made it perfectly crystal clear that I had a lot of wasted potential before my block, and I specifically promised that I would do better. Like I said, I was suddenly blocked due to things getting messed up under my control and me not having the energy to stop it. I was also charged with ignorance, lack of general competence, and misuse of automated tools (which I uninstalled to not cause further problems). I'm a good person, it's just that things get out of hand pretty easily on Wikipedia. I have read everything that John said (which is surprising considering my past mistakes), and I'm ready to improve again.--User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 18:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest you slow down, stop pinging people, and try to focus on other things. It appears you got into this problem by moving too fast, and you will only make things worse if you continue. Wikipedia moves slow, don't try to rush things. You may not hear from people for several days. 2001:4898:80E8:1:EAC9:F2E0:133C:5F95 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, well I'll wait. In the meantime, I'll just read the policies. I looked at the report and they say I should be blocked for a little while anyways, so we'll see what happens. Oh, and you inappropriately changed the indent syntax. User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 18:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter, if it bothers you change it. More importantly, I once again suggest you stop editing. Stop adding more things. Stop changing past comments. Stop entirely. Go do something else. The more you edit, the more impulsive you seem, and the less likely you will be unblocked. Like I said, show down. This is my last advice. 2001:4898:80E8:1:EAC9:F2E0:133C:5F95 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JTZegers, At this juncture that’s the best possible route, take a short break from editing, and in that short break, endeavor to read some of our polices/guidelines/ essays and when you do return, tell us that you understand why you were blocked, take full responsibility of your actions, do not blame anybody or scripts/tools and explain to the community why we should trust you and how moving forward you wouldn’t engage in the action or actions that got you blocked in the first instance. FWIW, on closing AFD's even the most experienced sysops make very inappropriate or very incorrect decisions. Closing AFD's is more of an art than it is numerical, thus it is an area experienced admins tread with serious caution and you running into it isn’t a bright idea. My opinion is this, even if you feel you are competent enough to handle NAC's it’s usually a good idea to leave it to sysops.Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007:: I did that all while we speak (I am a fast reader and I knew exactly what you would have told me to do).

During the beginning of my career, I got two warnings about my misuse of Twinkle from Ponyo. I decided to take a short break to understand the policies at first, and I should have slowed down. The ongoing scandal right now started when I made a couple of WP:BADNAC closures against advice. Despite a warning, I made a third one. This is why I was reported to the administration for my ongoing problems. I then proceeded to violate more Wikipedia policy due to my poor judgement while trying to merge List of production battery electric vehicles (table) to List of production battery electric vehicles, first by CSDing the original article, then by properly merging it without concensus, and then by doing the same thing. As I was doing it, I was violating Wikipedia policy on WP:SIG policies, which, during my reporting, led to false allegations of sockpuppetry and trolling. Unknowingly, I was breaking WP:CON and WP:CLOSE rules by deleting the talk page discussion (because I didn't know what I was doing at the time) and then merging the article, which on top of the WP:BADNAC closures, ignoring advice from experienced editors, abuse of automated tools, and lack of good judgement, ultimately got me blocked. I understand what I did wrong, and I wish that the whole thing never went down so I wouldn't have to deal with this.

You should trust me because I'm still learning how to be a top-notch Wikipedian. The only reason why I have been blocked was because I continued to make more mistakes, which I shouldn't have done, and I feel regret for those mistakes that I have made. The only reason why I blamed the admins was due to a fit of frustration over my block. I have done a lot of wrong things, and this is by far the worst. Therefore, it's not the automated tool's problem, or the administration's fault that I got blocked, it's me not knowing what I was doing that was hurting Wikipedia. And now I know what not to do. And I won't do it again because I know not to.

I am still completely convinced that we are an improving encyclopedia and I wish that my beliefs were not shattered by the effects of my disruption (usually reverts) or the ugliness of being indefinitely blocked for said disruption. I know I can do better, and I will do better. I promise.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 22:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add, I think that a 1 month ban on automated tools would have been the right choice anyway, considering how we got here.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 23:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Floquenbeam: What do you think about a ~3 month partial block for every namespace except mainspace, talk, draft, and user (and their respective talks) alongside a TBAN from all automated tools for the same length of time? If they want help they can always use {{help me}} or {{admin help}} here. If they're not trolling and actually want to devote time to learning, we're not accomplishing anything by indefinitely blocking them just yet; have them submit to a CU check and then hand them some more rope.
As for JTZegers, please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)", then head over to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal and reset your signature back to the default. If you want to demonstrate that you care about improving the encyclopedia, stop messing around with the discussion board side of the site and instead make useful changes to mainspace with precise summaries. It'll make people less suspicious if you have a track record of accurately explaining every change you make. Also, while we're not serious all the time here, try to refrain from using jokes or questionable phrases in discussions. Unless you're established as being a reliable editor, these sorts of retorts will be perceived as trolling by many. Regardless, I fully oppose an unrestricted unblock at this time. I weakly support an unblock if all namespaces except the aforementioned are restricted, and I would fully support an unblock if JTZegers agreed to a CU check before being unblocked with access to only those namespaces. Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anarchyte:@Floquenbeam: This has been a hard time for me. Even though I completely disagree with these restrictions, I accept them. Even though I am clearly not a long-term troll or a sockpuppet I agree to a CU check and wish to start a new life on this platform.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 17:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed unblock conditions[edit]

Dear Mr. Zegers,

I feel particularly generous, so I'm willing to unblock you with the following conditions and restrictions:

  • You will be restricted to the namespaces of Main, Talk, and User Talk. You've been editing your userpage too much, so I'm loath to allow you access to the User namespace unless others really think it is appropriate. I also want you to improve other people's content before starting to create your own, so you will not create any new pages, regardless of your technical ability to do so. For the same reason, the draftspace will stay off limits for the time being.
  • Within the User Talk namespace, you are restricted to your own talkpage (i.e., the page you're looking at right now) and the talkpages of users who start conversations with you. In other words, you are only allowed to edit someone else's talkpage if it is in response to that user first leaving a message on your talkpage; even then, it is best to use only your talkpage.
  • Within any namespace, you will not close any discussions, period. You are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in discussions about relevant topics, but Archiving discussions is only allowed on your talkpage, and even then you must let such discussions run their natural course and not explicitly "close" them. (You will also not do any merges or moves, including but not limited to those resulting from the consensus of a discussion.)
  • Within any namespace, you will not perform any automated edits, period. An "automated edit" is one made, of course, with a tool like Twinkle that creates an edit tag that indicates it's automated.
  • I apologize for calling you a troll earlier; you do not need to agree to a CheckUser, although your earlier comment I am clearly not a long-term troll or a sockpuppet inspires virtually no confidence in your personality. (If it turns out you are in fact a sockpuppet per CU, I think you know what will happen.)
  • You will not be an undue burden on other users. A lot of other users, including yours truly, have poured in quite a bit of effort to try to amend your behavior; if I see any more attitude/"lip" on your part, such as blaming others for your mistakes or another instance of the "clearly not a troll" comment, I will issue a stern warning to you on that for the first offense and an indefinite reblock on the second. Competence, not just good faith, is needed to edit Wikipedia successfully and productively, as is not being an idiot or a-hole.

Except for the last one, all of these restrictions are zero-tolerance. If I see you so much as correct a typo on a user talkpage that isn't yours or isn't of user who had previously pinged you of something, or if you find an automated lint-cleaner to use, you're getting reblocked indefinitely without warning. Depending on the severity I might even have to withhold talkpage access in that event. If you choose to accept these conditions, they will last for 500 non-minor edits in the mainspace (and I mean actually non-minor; inflating the count will also result in a reblock) or one month , whichever comes later. If you make it to that point, we can discuss loosening restrictions and introducing such capabilities as creating articles as drafts, depending on how you've done and how you feel. I'm sorry if these seem severe, but you really need to get these things through your head and I'm being fairly generous even considering an unblock.

What do you say to this offer, do we have a deal?

 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC) @John M Wolfson: We have a deal. I know if I come out as a sock I'll be blocked again, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 21:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unblocked with these conditions. Just know you're on really thin ice and that I'm watching your contributions like a hawk. Don't let me down!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may accept the unblock request too.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 22:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @John M Wolfson:So I just read that if I try to correct a typo of mine, it can't be on a user's talk page because of the talk user talk page restrictions?User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 22:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you may not make that edit. That's okay, though, since typos are allowed to exist on talkpages. Thanks for your questions!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @John M Wolfson:Ok, so the first thing I do is go back to what I was doing before the block and talk with them to finally reach a consensus (table or list?), then I'll have someone do the final merge.User:JTZegersSpeak*Aura 22:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • That sounds okay, so long as you're respectful and don't attempt to do any merging/closing yourself.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John M Wolfson and JTZegers: - I'm just going to note an additional exemption I believe should be granted which is WP:TEAHOUSE, the helpdesk designed for new editors, despite being in project space. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a good point. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to whitelist that page from the projectspace block, and I still don't feel comfortable granting JTZegers projectspace access (with AfD and whatnot). To compensate for that, JTZegers may now edit my (John M Wolfson's) talkpage with any good-faith questions on content or policy he may have; restrictions on talkpages other than mine or his remain in effect.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the unblock with conditions is worth a try, the initial results aren't promising. @John M Wolfson: if you're acting as a kind of unofficial mentor, you might want to take a look at JTZ's edits at Richard Hammond. In particular, here is a diff of what JTZ considers rewording "more neutrally" his addition to the lead of a BLP (not backed up with info in the body, nor, really, in the source), when his first attempt is reverted: [2]. This is at a time when he knows he is under scrutiny. While I don't think a re-block after one set of edits is necessary, I'm afraid he is simply not competent to edit here, and will need to do some maturing before he is ready in a few years. In the mean time, we need to respect other people's time and energy. Every single edit he makes is going to have to be reviewed in detail by another editor, and from the look of things, most will be reverted, and then he will re-order the words and someone has to review that in detail? This can't go on for very long at all without becoming a serious timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed that, and it seems like Zegers needs to pay more attention to our living persons policy. I've also looked through his non-discussion contributions in the mainspace and noticed a lot of edits that aren't really all that necessary and don't add substantial content. I'm still willing to give him a chance, and I'm not going to reblock him just yet, but maybe he should be willing to take a WikiBreak? We are ultimately an encyclopedia after all, and maybe this might not be the website for him? Of course, he can think about it if he wants, and if he really wants to keep going he can (knowing one of the conditions, of course, is not being "an undue burden on other users"). Otherwise I can reblock him until he feels better and gains maturity, at which point I can unblock him with the conditions.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked[edit]

I'm sorry I had to do this, but one of your conditions was that you not go on other users' talkpages unless it was in response to a conversation they had gone on yours previously. I found this on Floquenbeam's talkpage; you were supposed to mention the diffs in question on the article's talkpage, and So, I understand you're the same guy who blocked me for being too disruptive early in my career is just a bridge too far in my opinion. I think you're a great guy, but you're not cut out to be a Wikipedian at this juncture. If you absolutely must appeal this block, read our guide on the matter before you do so. And absolutely do not create another account.

You might also notice that this time you are unable to use your talkpage. This is to prevent any more unnecessary timesinks for other administrators on this case, as well as to prevent your time being wasted in fruitless appeals. There is a process of appealing your block without it, but I'm not going to say it because a) I don't want you to send a request to it right now and waste more time, and b) it's mentioned in the guide above and I want you to actually read our policies.

I'm sorry this didn't work out, but hopefully your time can be spent in a more productive manner. If several years from now you feel more ready to edit Wikipedia, you may appeal your block and discuss it using the guide I mentioned earlier.


 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was worth a shot, John M Wolfson. It's unfortunate that it didn't turn out as planned. Their demeaner gives the impression of a younger editor, so after gaining some maturity I hope that later down the line JTZegers will be able to rejoin our community with the (albeit misplaced) enthusiasm that they've demonstrated over the last few days. Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JTZegers/Archives/2021/May&oldid=1026519511"