L.K.amila
January 2023 edit
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Belvedere (film), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit susummaries edit
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks!
Laterthanyouthink (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Blocked edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Graham87 09:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Your editing pattern is highly suspicious and it appears you have been using a computer program to make edits which have ranged from disruptive to neutral to occasionally useful. To pick a random example of the former, This edit to "Don't Turn Off the Lights" shows staggering incompetence. Also, despite saying you'd try to increase your use of edit summaries above, in the month of March none of your 221 edits contained one. You are not welcome here. Graham87 09:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
L.K.amila (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The edit I was banned for I cannot agree with. Nor I agree with "your pattern is suspicious". Since there's not a single proof to this "suspicious pattern" I can only clarify on my Don't Turn Off the Lights edit where I changed "It was not as successful in the United States" to "Slightly more moderate in the United States". I made that edit to avoid tautology with "success" as it was already used in the previous sentence. Without losing any details I tried to accomplish it that way. Although I'm not 10+ years of experience here, not at all, I read Manual of Style and thought I didn't break any rule. Even though articles should remain neutral, they should also be interesting to read which I tried to improve. In the end, I don't understand what does "You're not welcome here" means. L.K.amila (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are accused of using a computer program to make edits. You need to directly address this. Yamla (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2023 (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.
L.K.amila (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I never used any software for editing. Not even Windows auto-correction or something. I don't know how do I prove this else other than by stating this against your statement. And again, "suspicious patterns" — how do I appeal to this if there's no details? If by "patterns" separating the introductory part with a comma is meant then how else I should've approached similar mistakes other than with similar corrections? Also, I wanted to add in the previous message that it isn't not true that I never added summaries to my corrections. There were ones where there was such need, where it wasn't obvious right away why particular correction was made. L.K.amila (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits were very rapid, sometimes two or three a minute. If you weren't using a computer program, then we must conclude that either you don't take enough care to ensure that your edits are proper, or you lack the skills needed to participate here. I'm not sure which. You also have not used edit summaries which suggests you cannot or will not heed instructions. I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in unblocking you at this time, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2023 (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.
L.K.amila (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The very premise for my ban was based on the wrong accusation. In the first message explaining my block, from April 1, 2023, 9:26, Graham87 said I added zero summaries and made 221 edits in the month of March, which is not true. Neither 221 edits, nor "0 summaries". Anyone may check it himself by this link to see it. The admin confused the cells and banned me for this, also stating I made the wrong edit which I explained it wasn't wrong. Other editors/admins who replied on my Talk page and declined every single appeal didn't explain, which of my edits were wrong? How can that be so that decline reasons state I bring no value to the community because I bring this exact value too fast? Please, if there are any mistakes in particular edits, show me which of my edits are disruptive or not useful? Because I struggle to get any argumentation for my ban in every appeal seeing this as a complete mistake from the beginning. If the only problem is the speed, then okay. I may do it slower. L.K.amila (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2023 (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.
.