Welcome!
Hello, Vamlos, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent discussion with another editor does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.
There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{
helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I've seen your edits on the talk page of the wiki page of Interracial marriage and I wanna help you relies that you are showing an extreme and clear bias towards Chinese men, I don't wanna report you and I'll try leave it to my last resort but the editing of yours and 'many others' can be considered abuse reporting and if you don't help clean up the abuse which has been left on the Interracial marriage page, you'll look really guilty, so please help do the right thing and I won't report you, instead if you don't response or take action I'll first take our dissection to Abuse Reporting, but mostly my next step will be Dispute Resolution, I wish you the best and I hope you do what is right :) -- Toby Mitches ( talk) 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Vamlos,
Your edit removed the request of another editor so I reverted it. You can not add content on this page that removes the edits of other users. I recommend you take the time to file a SPI case if you would want an investigation started. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello, I'm
Usedtobecool. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Talk:Interracial marriage that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Hi there, Vamlos! It was actually multiple times, not just one. I am dropping you this note so you become officially aware that you need to focus on content and not on other editors. See WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please also familiarise yourself with WP:OUTING. Violations of outing can lead to an immediate block. It seems that there isn't even a mild template to warn about this. That's why I am having to write this myself. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Armenia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alex2006 ( talk) 18:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Sexual violence in South Africa, you may be
blocked from editing.
jp×
g 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Defective user Vamlos continue to act in wikipedia. Thank you. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Hi Vamlos. My suggestion to you is to move on to other things asap and don't post any more at User talk:Bablos939. I also suggest you self-revert your recent posts as a sign of having good-faith in the unblock process. Bablos939 has been blocked and whether he will end up unblocked is up to adminsitrators. They are quite capable of reviewing Bablos939 behavior and determing whether his account should be unblocked. Everytime you post something like this on his user talk page, you're just creating more WP:DRAMA that others are going to have to sort through. What you're doing isn't going to help settle things down and isn't going to change the fact that Balbos939 has already been indefinitely blocked. Moreover, not only can everything you post there simply be reomved by Bablos939 at anytime per WP:BLANKING, it also might make some administrator reviewing the page decide to take another look at your involvement in things. I understand you might feel the need to defend yourself, but you're not helping resolve things in any way shape or form. If Bablos939 wants to argue WP:NOTTHEM and blame others for his block, then administrators are smart enough to see through all that and will respond accordingly by declinig his unblock requests. If he continues to do such things, an administrator will take away his ability to even edit his own user talk page. There's nothing further for you to do and thus no need to post any more on his user talk page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Negrito, you may be
blocked from editing.
Acroterion
(talk) 01:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I do think your additions are useful and belong in the article, all I did was move them from the lead section. I didn't think this was an event of enough prominence in the millennia of Nubian history to belong in the lead section. - SimonP ( talk) 14:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chen Tang (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhuang. 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) 06:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Rsk6400. I noticed that you recently removed content from
African Americans without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Rsk6400 (
talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taylour Paige, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zola.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to
Chinese Americans has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Hut 8.5 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Interracial marriage into
Eurasian (mixed ancestry). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Vamlos, I have now corrected the wording. The study (Zhang et al.) talked about autosomal STRs rather than ancestry. I also reincluded the block quotes which you removed without reason. I hope you agree now. We must also remember the 3 revert rule. Better to move this discussion onto the talk page. Please do not remove sourced content but try to edit it without removing. Further edit warring may result in both of us blocked. I will request a third user opinion if you keep reverting it. I hope we can find a solution and agreement. Anyway greetings and have a nice day. 46.125.250.11 ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup Q (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balinese.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to
Cape Coloureds has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. (from
https://sittingbull1845.blogspot.com/2013/06/black-social-history-afro-asian-also.html)
ƒirefly (
t ·
c ) 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
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. Thanks!
Rsk6400 (
talk) 04:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions. It seems that you may have added
public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as
Proto-Mongoloid. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia
guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an
attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. The same thing applies to
Mongoloid, where you restored content that had been deleted about a year before, creating the false impression that that content had been written by you. See also
Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia.
Rsk6400 (
talk) 06:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please do not comment on Talk:Bisexuality about your personal views about the sex and gender distinction, intersexuality, and trans people. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at
Comfort women.
Binksternet (
talk) 14:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have initiated Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones and Draft:Civil life in conflict zones and promote for expansion of the article drafts. Please do help expand the article drafts you find topics interested in.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-M175, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hmong and Bruneian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Iskandar323. Your recent edit(s) to the page
Genghis Khan appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been
reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please
cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. The precise wording from Weatherford was provided in the edit comments on 14 October (check it!), and it makes absolutely no mention of "sinicisation". Stop copying and pasting
WP:OR back in.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste my time and energy arguing with the infinite number of neo-nazi editors trying to push their racist POV or the Wikipedia moderators that enable them so in case you didn't see this deleted message, here you go.
It is an accurate portrait, the origin and context of the painting is thoroughly discussed by Isabelle Charleux, director of researches at CNRS, here: https://www.academia.edu/11721045/Crit%C3%A8res_changeants_d_authenticit%C3%A9_sur_quelques_portraits_anciens_et_modernes_de_Chinggis_Khan_dans_le_monde_mongol
"Malgré la cinquantaine d’années séparant ce portrait de la mort du Khan, la personnalisation des traits est évidente et les sources nous informent du souci de ressemblance qu’avaient les commanditaires. Avec le portrait de Pékin (et sans doute celui de Taipei), on serait donc en présence du plus ancien portrait conservé, réalisé dans un cadre officiel – celui de la cour des Yuan –, et de surcroît, probablement peint par un artiste mongol."
Hope that helps you.
Best regards. 2A02:8440:5113:9542:0:40:3695:9001 ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Racialist slurs at Ainu people. Thank you.-
193.107.22.36 (
talk) 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk) 23:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Vamlos ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is a error and misunderstanding. If I offended anyone please accept my apology. I had been given a indefinite block without given any time to explain. I was basically blocked for using the word pseudo-caucasian and mixed breeds in the Ainu edit summary Here. I had zero intention of being racist and getting myself blocked. The Pseudo-Caucasian word had been used in Ainu people wiki page to refer to their appearance for more than half a year. The source is even from a 2015 genetic study that had been edited since 9 June 2021?
Even the word Pseudo-Caucasoid had been used in the Proto-Mongoloid wiki page since [ July 2019], for nearly 3 years. The Jomons are ancestors of Ainu
I'm not making this up. I edited in that page since since 14 July and 5 September And by mix breed I mean the definition that had been edited in multiple wikipedia pages since 5 years ago or longer. It's use to to refer to mixed race, multiracial people. I used mix-breed because Ainu are indigenous population but they a mixture of mixture of Japanese, Ainu, Nivkhs. Mix breed is seen in Half-caste and Eurasian_(mixed_ancestry) wiki page
You can see that in this section of the third paragraph
I follow wikipedia rules and did not do anything wrong
I'm surprised I was misinterpreted like that. I simply used the words that wikipedia had already been edited and defined. Wikipedia allows those words. How would I have know that those were offensive words if they were not removed for such long time. That would be a complete contradiction for wikipedia. I sourced everything I written. It's been a some time since I reverted a users opinion and almost every time it's to those one-day IP user, who comes back with different IP. and even I only reverted once for every 3 days. I used talk page discussion like a sensible user would do. Like recently when I have a dispute a quickly go discus in talk page. [6] [7]
To user 193.107.22.36
He is another single IP user. I don't understand how these single IP users just comes and edit immediately. Every time I revert another single IP users changes it but they all come from the same person. They are clearly not beginners. And they are using multiple accounts to carry out their agenda. Even if User:193.107.22.36 is from Russia (or he used proxy IP address) he is still another same single day edit user, who re-edited the same pictures and similar edit summary.
Changing IP address, using different local computer shops and mobile edit is something anyone can do. One thing they all have in common is their location is in Austria and they are one time user.
(Note: I even have strong evidence on he is. His choices of wiki pages and his change of location matches this Chinese user from Quora pretending to be Turkmen, pretending to be Japanese and Ainu Japanese(also in youtube). He pretends to be multiple ethnicity to gain credibility among others. But I didn't want him to get blocked or exposed him in Quora and even wikipedia because 99% of the things he written I'm okay with and he is doing a good job fighting supremacist. Even it's so corny. It's just his choice of Ainu pictures that are a bit over the top. He is basically using predominant Siberian Natives with some Ainu ancestry while purer Ainu pictures are removed.)
Finally Giving me harsh warning would be the most suitable but instead I got blocked indefinately. Drmies just gave me a full block. If Drmies wanted he could overlook it as accidental wrong choice of words but there wasn't even a single chance for me have a fair reply. Please accept my apology and give me another chance. I will be more careful from now. But reality is Pseudo-Caucasian and mixed breed already come from the same wikipedia pages that others have edited them. I simply used them on my edit summary. Blocking me on this is a complete contradiction. Vamlos ( talk) 14:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see no appeal here. Stop the conjecture about the race of an IP editor, the justification of outdated racial epithets just because they have Latin roots. If you want your appeal to be taken seriously you need to focus on your own conduct and what you will do to improve. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 19 January 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.
Fellow admins, please see this. Drmies ( talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Vamlos ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I want to appeal and reverse the block of my account and IP. I now acknowledged that I made mistakes in using words like Pseudo-Caucasian and mixed breed which I didn't know were racial slurs. But please understand the reason for my mistake were accidental, not intentional. Reason I made that mistake is because the word Pseudo-Caucasian had been used in the Ainu people wiki page ( here) from half years ago till now. Also for mixed breed.The word had used in the Eurasian ( here) since five years ago till now. So I though it was okay to use them on edit summary. I really had not racist intention. Surely a simple mistake like that can be forgiven ? I had no bad intentions and I'm not a bad person either. Because in all my life I never heard those words were considered racist slurs and certainly we never heard on them as being offensive in mainstream media. I have no history of using offensive/racist words like the F word and other similar strong offensive mainstreams words. I won't use those scientific racist words or other similar words anymore in the edit summary. I simply made a mistake not knowing they were offensive. Please give me another chance to reflect on my mistake. And from now on I will not revert even once and discuss them on the talk page/discussion. Vamlos ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't see your conduct as a "simple mistake." The preoccupation with racial purity, the blaming of others for your problems, and the completely unacceptable terminology used with no awareness of its offensiveness are not rectifiable in the short time since you were indefinitely blocked. I will extend the standard offer: if after at least six months from the time you were indefinitely blocked you return with a thoughtful and appropriate unblock request, it will be reviewed by administrators. Until then, you may not edit Wikipedia. No pings, explanations, socking, editing via IP, or other activity, except for basic questions you might have relating to these terms. Should you violate these restrictions, the term of the offer will be reset or revoked. This does not guarantee that you will be unblocked, that will depend on your approach to any request for reinstatement, which, if granted, may come with terms like a topic ban. Until then, I suggest that you do some basic reading concerning racism, discussions of culture relating to race and its discussion, and the ways in which people refer to and discuss race, perceptions of race and their implications. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 15 February 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.
@ Liz:, @ Cabayi:, @ Drmies:. I really don't want to waste any more time. I'm fully ready accept any final answer to my unblock request. I feel this account is done for anyway, I just want to know 100% sure If I can use this account anymore. I've listened to Liz, and have been very patient waited for more than 1 week hoping for any slightest reply or response. The fact that I made my second appeal since 19th January and we are now in 30th January. I've waited very patiently. I've seen accounts who got 3 days block and 1 week block and they get answered in 1 or 2 days. While my 2nd appeal had been 11 days, this is basically no different to having 11 days blocks on me. Do I have to come back and check everyday for someone to do my 2nd unblock request. There is no date or any response for long I should wait. I've listened to Cabayi. I do want my appeal to be taken seriously but no one is taking seriously or else I wouldn't need to wait for 11 days. So all this because Drmies decided to full blocked me for using two word, Pseudo-caucasian and mixed breed. Words that I didn't know that were considered offensive ( now I know and I repent and understand). I've seen people who used aggressive language, real mean mainstream words. The F word, N word, B word on purpose and real other racist words BUT In get treated the same ???. All I did was edit words not knowingly known they were offensive and I used only because those words are used by scientist and authors in the very same Ainu people wiki page and others Pseudo-Caucasian had been used in the Ainu people wiki page ( here) from half years ago till now. Also for mixed breed. The word had used in the Eurasian wiki page in in the third section ( here) since five years ago till now. Mix breed is also shown in Half-caste. I find it ironic that I can get full block like I was intentionally being racist for the words that wikipedia permits to use in the same pages and words that we almost never hear as being offensive in mainstream media Yes. It's my mistake to use those words and I reflected it but you can't say I don't have evidence that I did in purpose. Please just let me know what the result is from here on. Vamlos ( talk) 19:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Liz: I waited for more than 2 weeks. Can you do my 2nd unblock appeal or have someone to do it for me ? Please help me out. Vamlos ( talk) 01:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly:, @ SimonP:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:. I've waited patiently in the first 10 days, now it 17 days and still nobody does my 2nd request or any response. What is even the point of my 2nd unblock appeal if nobody does anything. The first unblock request didn't take even take more than 2 hours. Nobody from wikipedia can tell me when they will do my 2nd unblock request.
Please. Would anyone do my 2nd unblock request. Vamlos ( talk) 13:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't believe even wikipedia can be so clueless and irresponsible as to keep people in dark for 3 weeks without people accepting a unblock appeal or giving me a date on when the unblock appeal would happen. What is the point of a 2nd unblock appeal if no one accepts it ? Vamlos ( talk) 23:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly:, @ SimonP:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cabayi:, @ Drmies:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cactus.man:, @ CactusWriter:, @ Callanecc:, @ CambridgeBayWeather:, @ Academic Challenger:, @ Acalamari:, @ Acroterion:, @ Admrboltz:, @ Deacon of Pndapetzim:, @ Deckiller:, @ Decltype:, @ Deepfriedokra: @ Cecropia:, @ Cerebellum:, @ Chetsford:, @ Closedmouth: It's been nearly a month. I want a admin to do my 2nd request or tell me how long I have to wait. Vamlos ( talk) 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Cabayi:, @ Drmies: @ Marchjuly:, @ SimonP:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cabayi:, @ Drmies:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cactus.man:, @ CactusWriter:, @ Callanecc:, @ CambridgeBayWeather:, @ Academic Challenger:, @ Acalamari:, @ Acroterion:, @ Admrboltz:, @ Deacon of Pndapetzim:, @ Deckiller:, @ Decltype:, @ Deepfriedokra:@ Cecropia:, @ Cerebellum:, @ Chetsford:, @ Closedmouth: For nearly a month I waited. I have no request done for my 2nd. The first one didn't even take a hour but the 2nd is nearly a month long and still nobody did anything. I don't understand what's going on but it's complete mess. There's no rules that tells me what to do next, no admin telling me how long I should wait for my 2nd unblock request. If I have to wait this long I might aswell pretend the 2nd unblock request had been declined. Vamlos ( talk) 07:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Vamlos, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent discussion with another editor does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.
There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{
helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I've seen your edits on the talk page of the wiki page of Interracial marriage and I wanna help you relies that you are showing an extreme and clear bias towards Chinese men, I don't wanna report you and I'll try leave it to my last resort but the editing of yours and 'many others' can be considered abuse reporting and if you don't help clean up the abuse which has been left on the Interracial marriage page, you'll look really guilty, so please help do the right thing and I won't report you, instead if you don't response or take action I'll first take our dissection to Abuse Reporting, but mostly my next step will be Dispute Resolution, I wish you the best and I hope you do what is right :) -- Toby Mitches ( talk) 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Vamlos,
Your edit removed the request of another editor so I reverted it. You can not add content on this page that removes the edits of other users. I recommend you take the time to file a SPI case if you would want an investigation started. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello, I'm
Usedtobecool. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Talk:Interracial marriage that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Hi there, Vamlos! It was actually multiple times, not just one. I am dropping you this note so you become officially aware that you need to focus on content and not on other editors. See WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please also familiarise yourself with WP:OUTING. Violations of outing can lead to an immediate block. It seems that there isn't even a mild template to warn about this. That's why I am having to write this myself. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Armenia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alex2006 ( talk) 18:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Sexual violence in South Africa, you may be
blocked from editing.
jp×
g 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Defective user Vamlos continue to act in wikipedia. Thank you. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Hi Vamlos. My suggestion to you is to move on to other things asap and don't post any more at User talk:Bablos939. I also suggest you self-revert your recent posts as a sign of having good-faith in the unblock process. Bablos939 has been blocked and whether he will end up unblocked is up to adminsitrators. They are quite capable of reviewing Bablos939 behavior and determing whether his account should be unblocked. Everytime you post something like this on his user talk page, you're just creating more WP:DRAMA that others are going to have to sort through. What you're doing isn't going to help settle things down and isn't going to change the fact that Balbos939 has already been indefinitely blocked. Moreover, not only can everything you post there simply be reomved by Bablos939 at anytime per WP:BLANKING, it also might make some administrator reviewing the page decide to take another look at your involvement in things. I understand you might feel the need to defend yourself, but you're not helping resolve things in any way shape or form. If Bablos939 wants to argue WP:NOTTHEM and blame others for his block, then administrators are smart enough to see through all that and will respond accordingly by declinig his unblock requests. If he continues to do such things, an administrator will take away his ability to even edit his own user talk page. There's nothing further for you to do and thus no need to post any more on his user talk page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Negrito, you may be
blocked from editing.
Acroterion
(talk) 01:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I do think your additions are useful and belong in the article, all I did was move them from the lead section. I didn't think this was an event of enough prominence in the millennia of Nubian history to belong in the lead section. - SimonP ( talk) 14:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chen Tang (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhuang. 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) 06:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Rsk6400. I noticed that you recently removed content from
African Americans without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Rsk6400 (
talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taylour Paige, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zola.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to
Chinese Americans has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Hut 8.5 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Interracial marriage into
Eurasian (mixed ancestry). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Vamlos, I have now corrected the wording. The study (Zhang et al.) talked about autosomal STRs rather than ancestry. I also reincluded the block quotes which you removed without reason. I hope you agree now. We must also remember the 3 revert rule. Better to move this discussion onto the talk page. Please do not remove sourced content but try to edit it without removing. Further edit warring may result in both of us blocked. I will request a third user opinion if you keep reverting it. I hope we can find a solution and agreement. Anyway greetings and have a nice day. 46.125.250.11 ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup Q (mtDNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balinese.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to
Cape Coloureds has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. (from
https://sittingbull1845.blogspot.com/2013/06/black-social-history-afro-asian-also.html)
ƒirefly (
t ·
c ) 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
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. Thanks!
Rsk6400 (
talk) 04:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions. It seems that you may have added
public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as
Proto-Mongoloid. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia
guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an
attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. The same thing applies to
Mongoloid, where you restored content that had been deleted about a year before, creating the false impression that that content had been written by you. See also
Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia.
Rsk6400 (
talk) 06:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please do not comment on Talk:Bisexuality about your personal views about the sex and gender distinction, intersexuality, and trans people. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at
Comfort women.
Binksternet (
talk) 14:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have initiated Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones and Draft:Civil life in conflict zones and promote for expansion of the article drafts. Please do help expand the article drafts you find topics interested in.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haplogroup O-M175, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hmong and Bruneian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Iskandar323. Your recent edit(s) to the page
Genghis Khan appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been
reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please
cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. The precise wording from Weatherford was provided in the edit comments on 14 October (check it!), and it makes absolutely no mention of "sinicisation". Stop copying and pasting
WP:OR back in.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste my time and energy arguing with the infinite number of neo-nazi editors trying to push their racist POV or the Wikipedia moderators that enable them so in case you didn't see this deleted message, here you go.
It is an accurate portrait, the origin and context of the painting is thoroughly discussed by Isabelle Charleux, director of researches at CNRS, here: https://www.academia.edu/11721045/Crit%C3%A8res_changeants_d_authenticit%C3%A9_sur_quelques_portraits_anciens_et_modernes_de_Chinggis_Khan_dans_le_monde_mongol
"Malgré la cinquantaine d’années séparant ce portrait de la mort du Khan, la personnalisation des traits est évidente et les sources nous informent du souci de ressemblance qu’avaient les commanditaires. Avec le portrait de Pékin (et sans doute celui de Taipei), on serait donc en présence du plus ancien portrait conservé, réalisé dans un cadre officiel – celui de la cour des Yuan –, et de surcroît, probablement peint par un artiste mongol."
Hope that helps you.
Best regards. 2A02:8440:5113:9542:0:40:3695:9001 ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Racialist slurs at Ainu people. Thank you.-
193.107.22.36 (
talk) 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk) 23:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Vamlos ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is a error and misunderstanding. If I offended anyone please accept my apology. I had been given a indefinite block without given any time to explain. I was basically blocked for using the word pseudo-caucasian and mixed breeds in the Ainu edit summary Here. I had zero intention of being racist and getting myself blocked. The Pseudo-Caucasian word had been used in Ainu people wiki page to refer to their appearance for more than half a year. The source is even from a 2015 genetic study that had been edited since 9 June 2021?
Even the word Pseudo-Caucasoid had been used in the Proto-Mongoloid wiki page since [ July 2019], for nearly 3 years. The Jomons are ancestors of Ainu
I'm not making this up. I edited in that page since since 14 July and 5 September And by mix breed I mean the definition that had been edited in multiple wikipedia pages since 5 years ago or longer. It's use to to refer to mixed race, multiracial people. I used mix-breed because Ainu are indigenous population but they a mixture of mixture of Japanese, Ainu, Nivkhs. Mix breed is seen in Half-caste and Eurasian_(mixed_ancestry) wiki page
You can see that in this section of the third paragraph
I follow wikipedia rules and did not do anything wrong
I'm surprised I was misinterpreted like that. I simply used the words that wikipedia had already been edited and defined. Wikipedia allows those words. How would I have know that those were offensive words if they were not removed for such long time. That would be a complete contradiction for wikipedia. I sourced everything I written. It's been a some time since I reverted a users opinion and almost every time it's to those one-day IP user, who comes back with different IP. and even I only reverted once for every 3 days. I used talk page discussion like a sensible user would do. Like recently when I have a dispute a quickly go discus in talk page. [6] [7]
To user 193.107.22.36
He is another single IP user. I don't understand how these single IP users just comes and edit immediately. Every time I revert another single IP users changes it but they all come from the same person. They are clearly not beginners. And they are using multiple accounts to carry out their agenda. Even if User:193.107.22.36 is from Russia (or he used proxy IP address) he is still another same single day edit user, who re-edited the same pictures and similar edit summary.
Changing IP address, using different local computer shops and mobile edit is something anyone can do. One thing they all have in common is their location is in Austria and they are one time user.
(Note: I even have strong evidence on he is. His choices of wiki pages and his change of location matches this Chinese user from Quora pretending to be Turkmen, pretending to be Japanese and Ainu Japanese(also in youtube). He pretends to be multiple ethnicity to gain credibility among others. But I didn't want him to get blocked or exposed him in Quora and even wikipedia because 99% of the things he written I'm okay with and he is doing a good job fighting supremacist. Even it's so corny. It's just his choice of Ainu pictures that are a bit over the top. He is basically using predominant Siberian Natives with some Ainu ancestry while purer Ainu pictures are removed.)
Finally Giving me harsh warning would be the most suitable but instead I got blocked indefinately. Drmies just gave me a full block. If Drmies wanted he could overlook it as accidental wrong choice of words but there wasn't even a single chance for me have a fair reply. Please accept my apology and give me another chance. I will be more careful from now. But reality is Pseudo-Caucasian and mixed breed already come from the same wikipedia pages that others have edited them. I simply used them on my edit summary. Blocking me on this is a complete contradiction. Vamlos ( talk) 14:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see no appeal here. Stop the conjecture about the race of an IP editor, the justification of outdated racial epithets just because they have Latin roots. If you want your appeal to be taken seriously you need to focus on your own conduct and what you will do to improve. Cabayi ( talk) 15:21, 19 January 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.
Fellow admins, please see this. Drmies ( talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Vamlos ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I want to appeal and reverse the block of my account and IP. I now acknowledged that I made mistakes in using words like Pseudo-Caucasian and mixed breed which I didn't know were racial slurs. But please understand the reason for my mistake were accidental, not intentional. Reason I made that mistake is because the word Pseudo-Caucasian had been used in the Ainu people wiki page ( here) from half years ago till now. Also for mixed breed.The word had used in the Eurasian ( here) since five years ago till now. So I though it was okay to use them on edit summary. I really had not racist intention. Surely a simple mistake like that can be forgiven ? I had no bad intentions and I'm not a bad person either. Because in all my life I never heard those words were considered racist slurs and certainly we never heard on them as being offensive in mainstream media. I have no history of using offensive/racist words like the F word and other similar strong offensive mainstreams words. I won't use those scientific racist words or other similar words anymore in the edit summary. I simply made a mistake not knowing they were offensive. Please give me another chance to reflect on my mistake. And from now on I will not revert even once and discuss them on the talk page/discussion. Vamlos ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't see your conduct as a "simple mistake." The preoccupation with racial purity, the blaming of others for your problems, and the completely unacceptable terminology used with no awareness of its offensiveness are not rectifiable in the short time since you were indefinitely blocked. I will extend the standard offer: if after at least six months from the time you were indefinitely blocked you return with a thoughtful and appropriate unblock request, it will be reviewed by administrators. Until then, you may not edit Wikipedia. No pings, explanations, socking, editing via IP, or other activity, except for basic questions you might have relating to these terms. Should you violate these restrictions, the term of the offer will be reset or revoked. This does not guarantee that you will be unblocked, that will depend on your approach to any request for reinstatement, which, if granted, may come with terms like a topic ban. Until then, I suggest that you do some basic reading concerning racism, discussions of culture relating to race and its discussion, and the ways in which people refer to and discuss race, perceptions of race and their implications. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 15 February 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.
@ Liz:, @ Cabayi:, @ Drmies:. I really don't want to waste any more time. I'm fully ready accept any final answer to my unblock request. I feel this account is done for anyway, I just want to know 100% sure If I can use this account anymore. I've listened to Liz, and have been very patient waited for more than 1 week hoping for any slightest reply or response. The fact that I made my second appeal since 19th January and we are now in 30th January. I've waited very patiently. I've seen accounts who got 3 days block and 1 week block and they get answered in 1 or 2 days. While my 2nd appeal had been 11 days, this is basically no different to having 11 days blocks on me. Do I have to come back and check everyday for someone to do my 2nd unblock request. There is no date or any response for long I should wait. I've listened to Cabayi. I do want my appeal to be taken seriously but no one is taking seriously or else I wouldn't need to wait for 11 days. So all this because Drmies decided to full blocked me for using two word, Pseudo-caucasian and mixed breed. Words that I didn't know that were considered offensive ( now I know and I repent and understand). I've seen people who used aggressive language, real mean mainstream words. The F word, N word, B word on purpose and real other racist words BUT In get treated the same ???. All I did was edit words not knowingly known they were offensive and I used only because those words are used by scientist and authors in the very same Ainu people wiki page and others Pseudo-Caucasian had been used in the Ainu people wiki page ( here) from half years ago till now. Also for mixed breed. The word had used in the Eurasian wiki page in in the third section ( here) since five years ago till now. Mix breed is also shown in Half-caste. I find it ironic that I can get full block like I was intentionally being racist for the words that wikipedia permits to use in the same pages and words that we almost never hear as being offensive in mainstream media Yes. It's my mistake to use those words and I reflected it but you can't say I don't have evidence that I did in purpose. Please just let me know what the result is from here on. Vamlos ( talk) 19:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Liz: I waited for more than 2 weeks. Can you do my 2nd unblock appeal or have someone to do it for me ? Please help me out. Vamlos ( talk) 01:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly:, @ SimonP:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:. I've waited patiently in the first 10 days, now it 17 days and still nobody does my 2nd request or any response. What is even the point of my 2nd unblock appeal if nobody does anything. The first unblock request didn't take even take more than 2 hours. Nobody from wikipedia can tell me when they will do my 2nd unblock request.
Please. Would anyone do my 2nd unblock request. Vamlos ( talk) 13:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't believe even wikipedia can be so clueless and irresponsible as to keep people in dark for 3 weeks without people accepting a unblock appeal or giving me a date on when the unblock appeal would happen. What is the point of a 2nd unblock appeal if no one accepts it ? Vamlos ( talk) 23:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly:, @ SimonP:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cabayi:, @ Drmies:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cactus.man:, @ CactusWriter:, @ Callanecc:, @ CambridgeBayWeather:, @ Academic Challenger:, @ Acalamari:, @ Acroterion:, @ Admrboltz:, @ Deacon of Pndapetzim:, @ Deckiller:, @ Decltype:, @ Deepfriedokra: @ Cecropia:, @ Cerebellum:, @ Chetsford:, @ Closedmouth: It's been nearly a month. I want a admin to do my 2nd request or tell me how long I have to wait. Vamlos ( talk) 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Cabayi:, @ Drmies: @ Marchjuly:, @ SimonP:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cabayi:, @ Drmies:, @ Acroterion:, @ Liz:, @ Cactus.man:, @ CactusWriter:, @ Callanecc:, @ CambridgeBayWeather:, @ Academic Challenger:, @ Acalamari:, @ Acroterion:, @ Admrboltz:, @ Deacon of Pndapetzim:, @ Deckiller:, @ Decltype:, @ Deepfriedokra:@ Cecropia:, @ Cerebellum:, @ Chetsford:, @ Closedmouth: For nearly a month I waited. I have no request done for my 2nd. The first one didn't even take a hour but the 2nd is nearly a month long and still nobody did anything. I don't understand what's going on but it's complete mess. There's no rules that tells me what to do next, no admin telling me how long I should wait for my 2nd unblock request. If I have to wait this long I might aswell pretend the 2nd unblock request had been declined. Vamlos ( talk) 07:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)