AzUrArInG
Welcome!
editHello, AzUrArInG, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Poor Papa, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Poor Papa
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Poor Papa, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Recent edit to List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes
edit
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Dbfirs 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Drew Bromley Productions
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Drew Bromley Productions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The article List of Daiei Films. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Please provide enough references to decline
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. S!lVER M. (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 12
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Daiei Films., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gate of Hell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Image without license
editUnspecified source/license for File:GAMMERA-THE-INVINCIBLE-GAMERA-movie-poster.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:GAMMERA-THE-INVINCIBLE-GAMERA-movie-poster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wizard of Oz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
User pages
editPlease stop creating user pages insulting blocked users, it's not helpful in any way.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) 
AzUrArInG (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 did because I wanted to do it to get them angry or be like I'm done with Wikipedia, I was thinking about it at school after you blocked me JamesBWatson and I realized it's the wrong thing to do, and I now I should never do those stuff again. I'm sorry for what I have done, I won't do it ever again, I promise it won't happen again I swear ok, next time I will do the right things for now on, and I'll try my best to make good things on the Wikipedia from now on. (UTC)
Decline reason:
Under the circumstances, the standard offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2017 (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.
Thank You PhilKnight about This
editThank you for changing my decline to an actual decline reason the older decline was made by 82.132.219.41 and all he put was "Lol no way", I decided to get rid of it, but then if I deleted my decline I would be in huge trouble so I reverted it back to what it was so someone can talk to that jerk, then I would've been thanked, also then you came and changed it which now I'm happy. 21:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Bye bye Everybody until I get unblocked
editSince, I got caught by JamesBWatson for accusing sockpuppetry, in June 3rd, 2017, I will never do any editing ever again, up until I get unblocked, and I'll try to look at things at how to be good at the wikipedia, after that, I'll be officially improved and I will never do anything like this crap ever again, and I'm sorry JamesBWatson ok. 22:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Time for a change of informational editing
editI decided to edit my talk page when I'm still blocked, so I'm partially returning, for now on, I'm going to learn and put sources on the information I added in the edit of something. Since, if you don't have any sources on the information you have putten in, it will be considered false to users if it doesn't have a source, which it will be reverted, so when I get unblocked, I will add sources to the edits I am editing to which page. 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
An explanation of how and why I did those bad things and a new reason why I should be unblocked
editIf you want to know how I started doing those bad decisions is actually because of the user TTyge24, which he made a bad edit which he removed links, and put his reason by using the word "blah", but with multiple b's, l's, a's, and h's. Which he then got blocked by the user Materialscientist, which caused to change how I acted in wikipedia, so I decided to add a user page of him and mock him, then I decided to do that to another bad user which was blocked by the same user who blocked TTyge24 who is is called, Materialscientist, which the user's name was called Musiclife2017, and then I mocked that user as well by doing the same thing as TTyge24, then after those 2 users, I wanted to make a fake vandelized sockpuppet account to do it a few times and then done with the vandelising crap, so I named it THEAMAZINGHACKER5555, which it got blocked due to its name, then later on, I decided to make another one, and this time, It will not be a name that would just get blocked in a matter of seconds, and it was called Sciencedude505, and then it got blocked, but at first I thought I would just go back to my normal account by doing the right things, but it didn't, so I went to make a talk with a user called Oshwah, in his talk page so they can get unblocked so I can go back to my original account, which it went the complete opposite, which I got blocked by JamesBWatson, the next day, then I tried to make an unblock myself, but failed, so I decided to do a full reveal and how it all started. Then I was so bored and I wanted to edit, so I started making 2 new accounts so give information about these things I am editing, but with no sources, due to the fact I have no idea how to easily make a source, and I thought it would take a really long time, and I also just copied parts of the source things used to make a source and put in a link, but those 2 were blocked by the same guy called JamesBWatson, and that is how and why I started doing those bad things, plus I knew it was bad, I just wanted to do it.
AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Now the reason why I need to be unblocked, so I can do better at things by making good edits, and adding sources to the edits I'm making, then I can be perfect, plus this time I will revert any unsourced edits that I see in what page the bad user has made recently, and no one has edited on the page, plus I will also try and talk to some pages, by giving them warnings if they do it again, and not adding a page and mocking them, after they are blocked. Also, I will do less edits than I did before, which I will probably more a minor editor, so that way I don't have any talks and warnings of what edits I have just made. Also, at last, I will not try and do any of those bad sockpuppetry things like I did before I was blocked, and sockpuppetry is not a good thing at all, anyway have a good day to all of you good users, and try help the wikipedia, by getting rid of those vandelised, and unsourced which are made by sockpuppeters, many unregistered users, and other bad users ok. 15:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Phil Knight suggested the WP:Standard Offer when declining your previous unblock request, and considering the extent of your disruption, coupled with the fact that you were still socking just a week ago, I wholly agree with that. So find something else to do for now, and then come back no sooner than six months from your last sock edit and make a new unblock request - six months can significantly enhance the maturity of a young person, and I think that is best for both you and Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2017 (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.
The History of when I started to edit on wikipedia
editEven though it has nothing to do with the fact, that I'm blocked right now or not, but I will show the history of my wikipedia time. I actually began editing at July 27, 2015, as an unregistered user called 97.91.14.125, and all of those edits at the time were in the mobile, and those edits were crappy, even though they were meant to be information I got from other places around the internet, but unlike most unregistered users, I have never gotten a warning or a block, despite those edits being reverted on that unregistered account, however I did get one talk warning and that was it, and I edited until August 1, 2016 on that unregistered account. Then in August 5, 2016, I made a new unregistered account called 97.91.19.161, which just like my previous unregistered account, I got no warnings, talks, and blocks and edited on a moblile device. In September 17, 2016, I logged in to my official account called AzUrArInG, and just like the both unregistered accounts, I edited in a mobile device, and the edits were bad, but only a few warning talks, however I didn't know how to stay in, so I used both my 2nd unregistered account and my AzUrArInG accoumt. On Octeber 1, 2016, I made this partial vandalized edit on the Nancy Drew... Reporter article which I wanted to improve myself about my movie videos I made on YouTube and called it Drew Bromley Productions, but I didn't know how "kind of" at the time, so I put the word Drew Bromley Productions, with these "[[ ]]", so I can make my first article, which I did, but was deleted, but luckily the edit was reverted on the Nancy Drew Article. On October 9, 2016, I made my first official article "2nd actually", called Country School (1931 film), a Walter Lantz Oswald Cartoon made in 1931, and it is still up today. The 2nd unregistered account I made made it's last edit at October 23, 2016. After that, I finally learned how which I edited for a long time on that account. In December 27, 2016, it was the last edit on a mobile device, up until April 3rd 2017 and also in April 7, 2017 and only that day so far. In January 13, 2017, I started editing on my chromebook and my Windows 7, which then I started to improve on my edits. In March 26, 2017, I started giving explanations to my edits, so I can tell why they need to keep it in. In April 6, 2017, I've made my biggest added edit today, but it was incomplete, but it was left in, then in April 12, 2017, I've completed the big edit I made, which that was all on the Toho article. (All the reason why about the sockpuppet vandelism stuff is on the previous talk above this one). Unfortunately in April 27, 2017, I've been officially blocked, but I will return in 6 or 7 months later, and that's the history so far about my wikipedia users and edits. 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix up the Yongary: Monster from the Deep article
editI decided to look at any edits if there's a problem with one just recently from June 13, 2017 to the recent edit of the page in June 22, 2017, which it was edited by 104.57.183.127, and 2602:306:839b:77f0:950e:bc2:9a1a:e98f (the second unregistered user doesn't have his linked due to the fact his talk page wasn't made yet and I don't know how to create a link by using their contributions), which both are the same 2 users who mostly messed up the Yonggary (1999 film) page, but unlike the Yongary: Monster from the Deep page, the Yonggary (1999 film) was fixed by a well known and good user named Andrzejbanas who removes most edits someone has made that do not have a source, and I wish I could fix all those edits made by those 2 unregistered users and revert them all the way back to the edit made by DocWatson42 which was made in June 8, 2017, but I can't because I'm blocked and I need to wait about 6 or 5 months left to make a new unblock request. So, I need one of you to fix the Yongary: Monster from the Deep page to make it look good again. If you think that the recent edits by those 2 unregistered users look ok and they don't need to be reverted on your opinion, then you can make a new talk of why they should not be reverted or agree with me, then please make a new talk of my talk page anyway have a great day on all of you good wikipedia users. 14:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I found 2 drafts made of the upcoming 2020 remake film known as Godzilla vs. Kong
editI looked up for drafts of films and I later decided to look at a draft of the upcoming 2020 remake film called Godzilla vs. Kong and when I looked it up, I noticed I just saw 2 drafts of the same upcoming film which the first draft were called Draft:Godzilla vs. Kong and the second draft was called Draft:Godzilla vs. Kong (film), were on the wikipedia, and so far no one has deleted one of drafts that is the same upcoming film, but the articles have differences of the actual page than just the name of the article.
The first draft has the production which has 4 references and is kind of long too, and it has the release too, which has only one reference on the release content, making 5 references in total, and has an internal link of the upcoming film, which has the upcoming film on the internet movie database. At last the first draft was made in September 13, 2015.
The second draft has the first sentence and the development plagarized from the first draft and edit partss of both the first sentence and the development that came from the first draft of the upcoming film. Also the plot was rushed which the 2nd draft's plot is just this "Godzilla and Kong appear together and fight." and added a writing to the second draft, but all have no references what so ever, except for the release of the film but the [1] was put at the reference box which the only reference on the second draft has the release of the upcoming film. At last the second draft was made in March 12, 2017.
Finally, which draft of Godzilla vs. Kong do you prefer to keep and prefer which other draft you want to delete, with me I personally want the first draft to keep and second draft to delete. The reason is because with the first draft, there is more references, and the first draft also has a external link, which the second draft doesn't have an external link, plus the first draft was made about 2 years before the second draft, also the first draft made 22 edits so far, while the second draft made only 3 edits so far. Finally the first draft has 4,054 bytes so far, and while the second draft has only 3,255 bytes. That's my opinion of which draft to keep and which draft to delete, but what is most of your opinions on which draft to keep and which to delete ok.
Here's is a list of the 2 drafts in order so you can know which is the first draft and which is the second draft of the same upcoming movie.
First Draft: Draft:Godzilla vs. Kong Second Draft: Draft:Godzilla vs. Kong (film)
Anyway have a great day everyone. 16:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
104.57.183.127 has vandalized the Godzilla vs. Megalon article
editEveryone, the unregistered user 104.57.183.127 has vandalized the article Godzilla vs. Megalon a day before this talk I made, and a while ago today, I was looking and trying to see any edits happened around and I decided what this unregistered user 104.57.183.127 has done some stupid bad edits and when I looked to see what the edit he made on the Godzilla vs. Megalon article, and I what I saw made me really mad, because what he did is that in his edit on the Godzilla vs. Megalon article is first he changed the cast of the monsters from this to this .
Before * Shinji Takagi as Godzilla * Godzilla as himself After * Tsugutoshi Komada and Masachika Mori as Jet Jaguar * Gamera as himself * Date Hideto as Megalon * Yonggary As himself * Kenpachiro Satsuma as Gigan * Megalon as himself * Gigan as himself
Also, he then added this "that wasn't until twenty-two years later in 1998.as," and changed As to as and replaced the . with , instead and no spaces. Then When I just saw that, I just got really angry, wishing to revert his 2 edits but I can't because I'm blocked, man I shouldn't have did of what happened to the Gamera article when it was vandelized by User talk:TTyge24, causing me to do what he did, then I would of fixed these issues, or allowing my unblock requests accepted or even not allowing the 6 month wait and then have the unblock request ready when you want it to be ready. Also, I am 13 years old and I was born February 27, 2004, indicating that I vandelized with sockpuppets when I was 13 years old. Finally, will one of you try and revert his 2 edits or possibly block that unregistered user, and if you do I will be really happy. 16:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Talk page access
edit
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19543 was submitted on Oct 20, 2017 17:40:17. This review is now closed.
Speedy deletion nomination of Cinema Shares
edit If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Cinema Shares requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20246 was submitted on Jan 06, 2018 15:30:32. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20256 was submitted on Jan 07, 2018 22:29:40. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21803 was submitted on Jun 12, 2018 15:45:09. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22531 was submitted on Sep 02, 2018 14:53:12. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has been about a year since I used to edit articles and also for being blocked for quite some time, which now I have no intentions at all of repeating any of my past mistakes, and now I am asking to be unblocked again. I am also aware of the reasons for why I was previously blocked for quite a while, and for now on, I am now planning to follow and learn the rules the best I can whenever I intend to add or edit an article, or if necessary, I will most likely just avoid editing. However, I would still like to help Wikipedia grow and provide help and as well as information that doesn't have anything to do with harming the site or any of Wikipedia's members, which is constructed after the rules and policies of Wikipedia itself.
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) 12:04, 3 September 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.
Unblock Request
edit AzUrArInG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has been about a year since I did edits around Wikipedia, and I have no intentions at all of repeating past mistakes, and I now ask again to become unblocked. I'm aware of the reasons for previously being blocked and I plan to follow and learn the rules to the best I can whenever I intend to add or edit an article, or if necessary, I will just avoid editing. Though I would still like to help Wikipedia grow and provide help and information that do not harm the site or its members, and that is constructed after the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Back in early of 2017, I was engaging in vandalizing articles using sockpuppet accounts and this went on without any of us coming to a consensus. Evidently I did not fully understand or fully care about this issue or the rule at the time, although I do now (time brings experience and knowledge), and I won't try to get into any vandalism in the future at all, if another user does the vandalism, I'll just revert the edits or call for help. If any other problem would arise, I'll contact an admin wherever I may find one, or I may just leave the article alone altogether instead of making a big deal out of it.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:57, 19 November 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 see it's four years since your last unblock request, so it’s very likely that you will never see this message, but I'm posting it on the off chance that you just may see it. I didn't see your unblock requests when you posted them, but if I had seen them I would have unblocked you. I will unblock the account now, and if you do come back you will be free to edit. JBW (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)