June 2023

edit

  Hello, I'm Raladic. An edit that you recently made to Bakevelliidae seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Raladic (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Praecardiida, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Bartonian. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

 
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 1 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).

Swift0ne1 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Swift0ne1 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

"Insert your reason to be unblocked here" is not a reason to unblock you. Please provide a reason for your request. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 2 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.

 
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).

Swift0ne1 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am completely new to Wikipedia editing and account creation. The follow up post which was not logged in as my account was not an attempt to evade anything, I simply responded to a talk I'm subscribed to without being logged in as I am not accustomed to the process. If I wanted to evade the block, it would take me a fraction of the time to do so below the table, as you well know. Were I tryiny to evade the block, I wouldn't be spending the time here presenting my case and acknowledging my mistakes. I believe my argument on that article is absolutely in good faith. As far as the 10 edits I made, it was indeed to gain editing permission, however the edits were indeed tests and certainly not egregious. A prrmanent ban is the consequence with no time to consume a warning? I was unaware of the impact and the full scope of the rules and guidelines. The violations you are seeing is clearly a case of a new user trying to understand the system and act in good faith. I acknowledge that, and better understand the editing mechanism moving forward. Thanks for your guidance. Having read the article on "Gaming the system", my violation and the impact of that violation is minimal. The disruption of my mistake and the associated edits are minimal. The article calls out, "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith." I was given multiple "warnings" in the same minute, followed by a permanent ban less than 30 limited later. The average person is unable to receive and react to a warning in such a time. Please reconsider the weight of your response. I understand my mistakes, hold myself accountable and acknowledge the guidelines and rules moving forward. I made several seemingly non intrusive test edits in a short period of time believing they would cause no damage. I am now aware there is a sand box for testing and better understand the scope of editing, the impact of my actions and the associated rules. I do not dispute the logic behind my initial block was sound, to raise awareness. I do find it extensive to receive warnings and a block within such a short period of time, unable to receive the feedback. A permanent ban also seems extensive given the nature of my edits were simply blank space insertion. Perhaps a 3 day ban with warnings would be more appropriate? That said, I do understand the nature of my violation, the scope of editing, and have every intention to participate in good faith, with respect to community rules and guidelines. Apologies for the disruption, thanks for your time.Swift0ne1 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Self-admitted abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:10, 3 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.