This archive contains all messages from the time right before, and during my indefinite block.
![]() |
Hello, Lallint!
Having an article 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!
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
|
The article Timeline of Watertown, New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Overkill for this smallish town. The main elements are included in the "history" section of the Watertown article, the remainder is trivia.
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.
Fram (
talk) 08:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, I noticed you put a file PROD on your own image. I'm just double-checking that this was intentional, and if so I will proceed with deleting it per WP:G7. Primefac ( talk) 08:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your
sandbox instead, where you are given a
certain degree of freedom in what you write.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk 17:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Ramspeck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
-- 01:32, Monday, March 7, 2022 ( 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 |
Why are you welcoming an editor who was blocked in 2007 who's only edit was to post this atrocious comment at AN? Giving the history of this account and your continued inexplicable behaviour, I'm now convinced you're either openly trolling or aren't capable of editing productively in a consistent manner.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Jezebel's Ponyo
bons mots 22:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Lallint ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am aware that the edits that I made were not allowed on Wikipedia and would like to be able to resume constructive and helpful edits. I did not intend for disruptive editing but looking back it is obvious that it was and I know now what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 02:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say that you knew the edits you made were not allowed but also that you didn't intend to edit disruptively; both of these statements cannot be true at the same time. Either you knew the edits were inappropriate and did them anyway, or you didn't know and were unknowingly disruptive. Either way, I concur with the comment below that you need to mature more as a person and editor before requesting unblock again. 331dot ( talk) 07:09, 13 March 2022 (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.
Lallint ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After around fifty days I have re-thought how I would like to approach this site, as more of as being a contributor to a project than a hobby. I was wrong to have been making inappropriate comments, and even going so far to create a redirect titled " Rfd me if u gay". That was ridiculous, and I promise that things like that are never going to happen again. I also have an alternative account, Lallint2, that I was aware of and did not use it for sockpuppetry or vandalism.-- Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 20:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As unblocking, even just partially, had been attempted before, followed by a re-block, an automatic unblock, and yet another block, accepting this unblock request while the blocking administrator is still reasonably concerned is not an option. I recommend waiting at least three months before creating a new unblock request, and I recommend not using this talk page in the meantime, to create a clear, visible distance between now and the end of the waiting period. In the meantime, editing other wikis is probably a good idea and encouraged (such as by WP:SO and WP:GAB at WP:SOCKBLOCK, both referring to sockpuppetry but providing generally useful advice). This decline is not meant to be a discouragement from editing in general. It is meant to minimize the risk of disruption in a project that has already had enough of it, and that has already provided three failed opportunities to edit. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:16, 20 April 2022 (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.
Horrible Articles and Ironic Afds both were attempts at humor, Horrible Articles was stolen by somebody with no trace of my edits to it and is now an April Fools article (despite having been written in February), so it was clearly a good contribution to the site Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
[e]ditors ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Therefore, although I am not ToBeFree, I think they will also say don't ask for / suggest edits while you are blocked. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
won't edit disruptively or for my own personal laughs, we can only take your word for it. While I don't doubt you are being sincere, we cannot be sure everyone is being truthful when they say they won't or will do something in the future.
to create a clear, visible distance between now and the end of the waiting period. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
-- 17:35, Saturday, March 19, 2022 ( 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 |
You were told above that if you requested edits to articles, that would violate WP:PROXYING and lead to a revocation of talkpage access.
You then immediately requested edits to articles.
I'll be honest, Lallint, I think you've been extended an inordinate amount of AGF here. Every single time an admin has told you not to do something, you have then tried to see how far you could push things. Over and over again. With no real acceptance of that fact the many times you've been called on it. I don't think you're incompetent. I don't think you're naïve. I think this is a deliberate pattern of trolling.
I've revoked your talkpage access. Please see WP:UTRS for your remaining options. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 23:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Lallint. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Jeffrey Smith (mayor), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
is closed. User should wait until after November 8th, 2022 to request unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 00:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Lallint. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Jeffrey Smith".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Minor Attracted Person and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Minor Attracted Person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 14:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Cambalachero (
talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
All disney films and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#All disney films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
declined. For the record, no block evasion found. The decline was on the merits of the request. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
is closed. Noting Yamla's decline on Nov. 5, 2022 at UTRS appeal #65170 -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 10:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
restored TPA per Ponyo and Tamzin -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I have just closed the community's unblock review, which unanimously backed unblocking you. I'd suggest reading the whole thing (if you haven't already), but will make the following highlights:
This archive contains all messages from the time right before, and during my indefinite block.
![]() |
Hello, Lallint!
Having an article 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!
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
|
The article Timeline of Watertown, New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Overkill for this smallish town. The main elements are included in the "history" section of the Watertown article, the remainder is trivia.
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.
Fram (
talk) 08:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, I noticed you put a file PROD on your own image. I'm just double-checking that this was intentional, and if so I will proceed with deleting it per WP:G7. Primefac ( talk) 08:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your
sandbox instead, where you are given a
certain degree of freedom in what you write.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk 17:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Ramspeck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
-- 01:32, Monday, March 7, 2022 ( 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 |
Why are you welcoming an editor who was blocked in 2007 who's only edit was to post this atrocious comment at AN? Giving the history of this account and your continued inexplicable behaviour, I'm now convinced you're either openly trolling or aren't capable of editing productively in a consistent manner.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Jezebel's Ponyo
bons mots 22:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Lallint ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am aware that the edits that I made were not allowed on Wikipedia and would like to be able to resume constructive and helpful edits. I did not intend for disruptive editing but looking back it is obvious that it was and I know now what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 02:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say that you knew the edits you made were not allowed but also that you didn't intend to edit disruptively; both of these statements cannot be true at the same time. Either you knew the edits were inappropriate and did them anyway, or you didn't know and were unknowingly disruptive. Either way, I concur with the comment below that you need to mature more as a person and editor before requesting unblock again. 331dot ( talk) 07:09, 13 March 2022 (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.
Lallint ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After around fifty days I have re-thought how I would like to approach this site, as more of as being a contributor to a project than a hobby. I was wrong to have been making inappropriate comments, and even going so far to create a redirect titled " Rfd me if u gay". That was ridiculous, and I promise that things like that are never going to happen again. I also have an alternative account, Lallint2, that I was aware of and did not use it for sockpuppetry or vandalism.-- Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 20:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As unblocking, even just partially, had been attempted before, followed by a re-block, an automatic unblock, and yet another block, accepting this unblock request while the blocking administrator is still reasonably concerned is not an option. I recommend waiting at least three months before creating a new unblock request, and I recommend not using this talk page in the meantime, to create a clear, visible distance between now and the end of the waiting period. In the meantime, editing other wikis is probably a good idea and encouraged (such as by WP:SO and WP:GAB at WP:SOCKBLOCK, both referring to sockpuppetry but providing generally useful advice). This decline is not meant to be a discouragement from editing in general. It is meant to minimize the risk of disruption in a project that has already had enough of it, and that has already provided three failed opportunities to edit. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:16, 20 April 2022 (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.
Horrible Articles and Ironic Afds both were attempts at humor, Horrible Articles was stolen by somebody with no trace of my edits to it and is now an April Fools article (despite having been written in February), so it was clearly a good contribution to the site Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
[e]ditors ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Therefore, although I am not ToBeFree, I think they will also say don't ask for / suggest edits while you are blocked. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
won't edit disruptively or for my own personal laughs, we can only take your word for it. While I don't doubt you are being sincere, we cannot be sure everyone is being truthful when they say they won't or will do something in the future.
to create a clear, visible distance between now and the end of the waiting period. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
-- 17:35, Saturday, March 19, 2022 ( 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 |
You were told above that if you requested edits to articles, that would violate WP:PROXYING and lead to a revocation of talkpage access.
You then immediately requested edits to articles.
I'll be honest, Lallint, I think you've been extended an inordinate amount of AGF here. Every single time an admin has told you not to do something, you have then tried to see how far you could push things. Over and over again. With no real acceptance of that fact the many times you've been called on it. I don't think you're incompetent. I don't think you're naïve. I think this is a deliberate pattern of trolling.
I've revoked your talkpage access. Please see WP:UTRS for your remaining options. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 23:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Lallint. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Jeffrey Smith (mayor), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
is closed. User should wait until after November 8th, 2022 to request unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 00:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Lallint. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Jeffrey Smith".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Minor Attracted Person and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Minor Attracted Person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 14:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Cambalachero (
talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
All disney films and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#All disney films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
declined. For the record, no block evasion found. The decline was on the merits of the request. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
is closed. Noting Yamla's decline on Nov. 5, 2022 at UTRS appeal #65170 -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 10:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
restored TPA per Ponyo and Tamzin -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I have just closed the community's unblock review, which unanimously backed unblocking you. I'd suggest reading the whole thing (if you haven't already), but will make the following highlights: