|
Hello, Vedbas,
You have been editing for less than 2 weeks and have about 100 edits. You have no where near enough experience to be moving pages from main space to draft space. Please stop doing this until you have much, much more experience editing articles and are more familiar with Wikipedia policies, practices and standards.
If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)@ Liz:
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't understand at first, now I understand, forgive me and unblock please. Chief Minister (Talk) 05:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You admit that you are not currently proficient. Please use the time of this block to read our policies and guidelines. No need to rush back to editing while you don't yet understand how to do it. Yamla ( talk) 10:05, 9 June 2021 (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: I realized my mistake. Forgive me. I will not do this again until I become proficient. Chief Minister (Talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Vedbas,
While it might have seemed that my action was swift, you are a very new editor and you were acting very unusually. The short block was to get your attention. You draftified 18 articles in one day which is way, way more than even very experienced editors do and you knew enough about Speedy Deletion to tag the redirects from main space to draft space. It raises questions about whether you are a returning editor and what previous usernames you might have edited under. If continue like this, you will draw attention from other editors besides myself.
You don't have enough experience (days active and number of edits) yet but when you do, you might consider joining AFC Reviewers or the New Pages Patrol since you seem to have a good feeling for what constitutes a good article on Wikipedia.
You seem to already know quite a lot about Wikipedia practices and policies but consider visiting the Teahouse if other questions arise. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for noticing the copyright violation on the above page. I removed the revision deletion template you placed and replaced it with a speedy deletion tag, under CSD G12. As it stands, there are no revisions on the page to delete, and no non-copyright content to restore save for a very brief (and honestly, insufficiently sourced) article. For cases like this, it is better to request deletion of the entire page. Thanks again! A S U K I T E 18:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You are a new editor and you do not yet understand the deletion process for AfD. I can see two AfD nominations you have made using Speedy Deletion criteria: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinit K. Bansal (Author) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viy Cortez. Please stop doing these; Cortez is likely notably and it is clear you did not do a WP:BEFORE, and Bansal just needed to be Speedy Deleted rather than a week-loing AfD involving multiple editors. You have just been unblocked recently for draftifying articles too quickly. You need to slow down and learn how things work here, rather than charging into processes you do not yet understand. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Your nomination
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shashank Kumar was placed on a vandalised version of the page. I have reverted to a pre vandalism revision and closed the AFD. If you're not willing to do the
WP:BEFORE & preliminary checks please don't make the AFD nomination.
Cabayi (
talk) 06:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I have just made two edits to this article and i see that i have entirely undone your edit; apologies if that feels bad. The categories you added were not appropriate, as i say in the summaries, because there's no reason to add specifically Cypriot categories to such a universal article, and because the "continental categories" you added are already within the main Category:Capitals; happy days, Lindsay H ello 19:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 08:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This is about your G11/Speedy on Pearl.com.
I note that you're a developer, hence contributing to Wiki in a way that is incomparable to what I'm doing, as an editor.
Briefly about myself and "history" - at one time I saw it as just memorizing dates (possibly just long enough to at least pass a test). I advanced, due to what I learned in a math class. What was stated from the front of the room was that 1732, as in 1.732, is the square root of three, and that one way to remember this is that George Washington was born in 1732.
Others may have heard that message. I heard a different one: 1732 is something to know as history. I learned something that day that is invaluable. Today I do have an interest in history; I should credit this to my parents, alas no longer in this world, both of whom showed a love for history.
My Pearl.com contribution is about history. I don't have any evidence that they still exist. Advertising it's not. A nomination for a regular AfD/Articles for Deletion is a point of view. A G11/Speedy seems to me as a calling out FIRE in a crowded theatre, and something that should be addressed by those in a position to do so, possibly noting the near-concurrent Speedy nomination of Rachel Goldman. Pi314m ( talk) 11:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Pi314m: please see
hereI suggested deleting it because it was deleted earlier for the same reason ,I was wrong so an admin fixed it.
Chief Minister
(Talk) 13:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'd be interested to know your reason for reverting the constructive edit I made to this article; the statement "Omar belongs to a prominent family that hails from the Sa'ad Musa sub-division of the Habr Awal Isaaq clan." lacks any citation, and at any rate doesn't need to go above his parentage (as is the case in most articles, parentage comes first, with background on the family following if necessary). The citation given for the (poorly-worded/ nigh on incomprehensible) statement "His family was based in Hargeisa and reportedly have properties and estates in the city; the 6 piano neighborhood and the US Mission Headquarters belong to their family" is a dead link, that doesn't have an available archived version online. Therefore it is not acceptable as a citation. I am therefore confused as to why my edits were almost immediately reverted, and would appreciate some insight into your thought process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.160.24 ( talk) 14:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I note that you have been warned and blocked in your short time here for jumping into areas where you are clearly not proficient. Today I see that you tagged Rachel Goldman for speedy deletion under WP:A7 although it contained many obvious indications of importance/significance. This is disruptive. Just add or correct some articles for the moment until you have become more aware of what our standards are, or you will find yourself blocked again. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that you have added many images to infoboxes using incorrect syntax. The plain filename goes in the image parameter {e.g somephoto.jpg}. Any caption goes into the corresponding caption parameter. (Explained further in WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). It would be great if you would go back and fix these. MB 03:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
MB Thanks your comments.but I've added many articles to this article that need a long time to correct them, so next time I'll remember these things later when I add the image WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. Thank you MB. Chief Minister (Talk) 04:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
MBNo, I'm not leaving for others. I mean, it takes a long time to fix these articles, so I don't want to fix them. Next time I'll add the image keeping the rules in mind. Chief Minister (Talk) 17:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Phil Bridger yes I'm Mediawiki developer. Chief Minister (Talk) 18:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi — I've noticed that you're making largely redundant edits, already up in the several hundreds (!!), changing the references tag to the reflist template. Both are valid methods, AFAIK, so why make these changes? Your edit notes offer no clue, either, just saying 'fix'. Obviously you don't need to explain yourself to me, but if you wish to, I'd sure be interested to know. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi DoubleGrazing,thanks for massage.I just (references) It removes (Reflist) Reflist template use I know the two are same However, I am using it to say that the template is standard, Chief Minister (Talk) 06:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
JBW (
talk) 11:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)JBW, Liz, Materialscientist please help
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
reason:I asked Steenkamp a question And I didn't notice the next answer he gave Because I was getting a lot of notifications then Because then many users thank me.I would not have made such a contribution if I had noticed his next notice And I apologize I will not make such a contribution next time. Notice from the beginning that I have not made any contributions that any user has forbidden me to make So my humble request free me from the block and give me chance to contribute.I realized my mistake
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (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.
JBWHmmm I understand now.And I followed the guidelines .The future will not be so wrong in my contribution.I apologize.And requesting release from the blockade. Next time I will make a useful contribution And stay away from wrong contributions. I will refrain from editing interruptions And Wikipedia will be able to make a good contribution. Chief Minister (Talk) 03:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
JBW please unblock me. Chief Minister (Talk) 19:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
whether you are a returning editor and what previous usernames you might have edited under.The user's contributions history is indeed unusual, to put it mildly, for a new account (including jumping straight into editing their User:Vedbas/common.js). I don't know if edit history under earlier username(s) is relevant in the unblock context, but nevertheless I think Liz's question deserves an answer in order for us to see the full picture. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I will make just one more attempt to help you. If this doesn't make a significant difference then I doubt that anything I can say will. If you are to have any chance at all of being unblocked, you need to do the following.
My final comment is to emphasise once again that if you are to be unblocked you must indicate that your editing will in future be totally different from what it was. Being unblocked so that you can go back to something similar to what you were doing, with a few minor changes, is not going to happen. JBW ( talk) 20:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
JBW Why release me from the blockade? If I continue to edit like this, please block me at a later time without notice But if in any case I make a mistake, if it is a new job, give me a message to correct that mistake So I will correct that mistake.I understand that the edit I have been blocked for will not cause any harm or interruption, and will instead make useful contributions.I also understood the reasons for blocking me.I beg you to give me a chance and I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit.My future edits will be completely different from what I have done so far And I beg you to give me a chance to free the block.I noticed the first notice to block JBW And I realized my editing was wrong.In the end I will refrain from the previous editing and through good editing I want to prove myself right once.I changed my signature.I apologize for all my mistakes Next I want to prove myself through good deeds that I will not make mistakes again next time. Vedbas ( talk) 08:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JBW: Please unblock. Give me a chance. I understand my mistake. Vedbas ( talk) 14:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JBW: my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. Vedbas ( talk) 03:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
JBWPlease release me from the block. Vedbas ( talk) 13:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. Also I followed the advice of JBW Unblock. I beg you to give me a chance and I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit.My future edits will be completely different from what I have done so far And I beg you to give me a chance to free the block.I noticed the first notice to block JBW And I realized my editing was wrong.In the end I will refrain from the previous editing and through good editing I want to prove myself right once.I apologize for all my mistakes Next I want to prove myself through good deeds that I will not make mistakes again next time. Vedbas ( talk) 10:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Despite repeated pointers by experienecd editors, you fail to do any of the following: actually be specific in your appeal. "Disruptive editing" is just the words in the block notice, we want to see that you actually can say, in your own words, what made you disruptive and exactly how you'll avoid that in the future. You also don't respond to other concerns raised on the page (excepting the signature note). You say you are a mediawiki dev - I'm also not sure any MW dev could be as lacking in knowledge in some of the core functionality of the primary site that uses it. Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (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.
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing My mistake was Flush edits Freed from the siege, I would like to revise the article and create new articles And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I understand the Nosebagbear statement but I understand my mistake so I am requesting to give me a chance to release the block I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit. Vedbas ( talk) 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Closing as it's been over a month. You may make a new request. 331dot ( talk) 08:41, 14 August 2021 (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.
Thanks.
Google translate--
Thanks for allowing me to publish in my language I am proficient in Hindi and Bengali. I mean I have been blocked from continuing to edit Flush edits and destructive and I continue to edit on condition that skilled users warn me. That's why I've been blocked. But I did not understand when the skilled users gave me their warning message. Because then my notifications kept coming again and again because many users thank me for this. But later I realized and then I was blocked. Later I followed the blocking guidelines and realized that my editing method was wrong. I will refrain from making such edits next time and if I am released from the block then from the current edit. There will be no matching of previous edits. I would like to create new pages and add categories and also edit pages. I'm sorry to continue editing without realizing it, I'm sorry and I'm asking for a chance.
What does "Flush" mean? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see [1] Vedbas ( talk) 10:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I was blocked from editing this. I request you to check the contributions.I can get out of the ublock here? Vedbas ( talk) 10:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
|
Hello, Vedbas,
You have been editing for less than 2 weeks and have about 100 edits. You have no where near enough experience to be moving pages from main space to draft space. Please stop doing this until you have much, much more experience editing articles and are more familiar with Wikipedia policies, practices and standards.
If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)@ Liz:
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't understand at first, now I understand, forgive me and unblock please. Chief Minister (Talk) 05:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You admit that you are not currently proficient. Please use the time of this block to read our policies and guidelines. No need to rush back to editing while you don't yet understand how to do it. Yamla ( talk) 10:05, 9 June 2021 (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: I realized my mistake. Forgive me. I will not do this again until I become proficient. Chief Minister (Talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Vedbas,
While it might have seemed that my action was swift, you are a very new editor and you were acting very unusually. The short block was to get your attention. You draftified 18 articles in one day which is way, way more than even very experienced editors do and you knew enough about Speedy Deletion to tag the redirects from main space to draft space. It raises questions about whether you are a returning editor and what previous usernames you might have edited under. If continue like this, you will draw attention from other editors besides myself.
You don't have enough experience (days active and number of edits) yet but when you do, you might consider joining AFC Reviewers or the New Pages Patrol since you seem to have a good feeling for what constitutes a good article on Wikipedia.
You seem to already know quite a lot about Wikipedia practices and policies but consider visiting the Teahouse if other questions arise. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for noticing the copyright violation on the above page. I removed the revision deletion template you placed and replaced it with a speedy deletion tag, under CSD G12. As it stands, there are no revisions on the page to delete, and no non-copyright content to restore save for a very brief (and honestly, insufficiently sourced) article. For cases like this, it is better to request deletion of the entire page. Thanks again! A S U K I T E 18:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You are a new editor and you do not yet understand the deletion process for AfD. I can see two AfD nominations you have made using Speedy Deletion criteria: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinit K. Bansal (Author) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viy Cortez. Please stop doing these; Cortez is likely notably and it is clear you did not do a WP:BEFORE, and Bansal just needed to be Speedy Deleted rather than a week-loing AfD involving multiple editors. You have just been unblocked recently for draftifying articles too quickly. You need to slow down and learn how things work here, rather than charging into processes you do not yet understand. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Your nomination
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shashank Kumar was placed on a vandalised version of the page. I have reverted to a pre vandalism revision and closed the AFD. If you're not willing to do the
WP:BEFORE & preliminary checks please don't make the AFD nomination.
Cabayi (
talk) 06:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I have just made two edits to this article and i see that i have entirely undone your edit; apologies if that feels bad. The categories you added were not appropriate, as i say in the summaries, because there's no reason to add specifically Cypriot categories to such a universal article, and because the "continental categories" you added are already within the main Category:Capitals; happy days, Lindsay H ello 19:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 08:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This is about your G11/Speedy on Pearl.com.
I note that you're a developer, hence contributing to Wiki in a way that is incomparable to what I'm doing, as an editor.
Briefly about myself and "history" - at one time I saw it as just memorizing dates (possibly just long enough to at least pass a test). I advanced, due to what I learned in a math class. What was stated from the front of the room was that 1732, as in 1.732, is the square root of three, and that one way to remember this is that George Washington was born in 1732.
Others may have heard that message. I heard a different one: 1732 is something to know as history. I learned something that day that is invaluable. Today I do have an interest in history; I should credit this to my parents, alas no longer in this world, both of whom showed a love for history.
My Pearl.com contribution is about history. I don't have any evidence that they still exist. Advertising it's not. A nomination for a regular AfD/Articles for Deletion is a point of view. A G11/Speedy seems to me as a calling out FIRE in a crowded theatre, and something that should be addressed by those in a position to do so, possibly noting the near-concurrent Speedy nomination of Rachel Goldman. Pi314m ( talk) 11:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Pi314m: please see
hereI suggested deleting it because it was deleted earlier for the same reason ,I was wrong so an admin fixed it.
Chief Minister
(Talk) 13:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'd be interested to know your reason for reverting the constructive edit I made to this article; the statement "Omar belongs to a prominent family that hails from the Sa'ad Musa sub-division of the Habr Awal Isaaq clan." lacks any citation, and at any rate doesn't need to go above his parentage (as is the case in most articles, parentage comes first, with background on the family following if necessary). The citation given for the (poorly-worded/ nigh on incomprehensible) statement "His family was based in Hargeisa and reportedly have properties and estates in the city; the 6 piano neighborhood and the US Mission Headquarters belong to their family" is a dead link, that doesn't have an available archived version online. Therefore it is not acceptable as a citation. I am therefore confused as to why my edits were almost immediately reverted, and would appreciate some insight into your thought process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.160.24 ( talk) 14:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I note that you have been warned and blocked in your short time here for jumping into areas where you are clearly not proficient. Today I see that you tagged Rachel Goldman for speedy deletion under WP:A7 although it contained many obvious indications of importance/significance. This is disruptive. Just add or correct some articles for the moment until you have become more aware of what our standards are, or you will find yourself blocked again. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that you have added many images to infoboxes using incorrect syntax. The plain filename goes in the image parameter {e.g somephoto.jpg}. Any caption goes into the corresponding caption parameter. (Explained further in WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). It would be great if you would go back and fix these. MB 03:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
MB Thanks your comments.but I've added many articles to this article that need a long time to correct them, so next time I'll remember these things later when I add the image WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. Thank you MB. Chief Minister (Talk) 04:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
MBNo, I'm not leaving for others. I mean, it takes a long time to fix these articles, so I don't want to fix them. Next time I'll add the image keeping the rules in mind. Chief Minister (Talk) 17:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Phil Bridger yes I'm Mediawiki developer. Chief Minister (Talk) 18:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi — I've noticed that you're making largely redundant edits, already up in the several hundreds (!!), changing the references tag to the reflist template. Both are valid methods, AFAIK, so why make these changes? Your edit notes offer no clue, either, just saying 'fix'. Obviously you don't need to explain yourself to me, but if you wish to, I'd sure be interested to know. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi DoubleGrazing,thanks for massage.I just (references) It removes (Reflist) Reflist template use I know the two are same However, I am using it to say that the template is standard, Chief Minister (Talk) 06:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
JBW (
talk) 11:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)JBW, Liz, Materialscientist please help
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
reason:I asked Steenkamp a question And I didn't notice the next answer he gave Because I was getting a lot of notifications then Because then many users thank me.I would not have made such a contribution if I had noticed his next notice And I apologize I will not make such a contribution next time. Notice from the beginning that I have not made any contributions that any user has forbidden me to make So my humble request free me from the block and give me chance to contribute.I realized my mistake
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (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.
JBWHmmm I understand now.And I followed the guidelines .The future will not be so wrong in my contribution.I apologize.And requesting release from the blockade. Next time I will make a useful contribution And stay away from wrong contributions. I will refrain from editing interruptions And Wikipedia will be able to make a good contribution. Chief Minister (Talk) 03:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
JBW please unblock me. Chief Minister (Talk) 19:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
whether you are a returning editor and what previous usernames you might have edited under.The user's contributions history is indeed unusual, to put it mildly, for a new account (including jumping straight into editing their User:Vedbas/common.js). I don't know if edit history under earlier username(s) is relevant in the unblock context, but nevertheless I think Liz's question deserves an answer in order for us to see the full picture. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I will make just one more attempt to help you. If this doesn't make a significant difference then I doubt that anything I can say will. If you are to have any chance at all of being unblocked, you need to do the following.
My final comment is to emphasise once again that if you are to be unblocked you must indicate that your editing will in future be totally different from what it was. Being unblocked so that you can go back to something similar to what you were doing, with a few minor changes, is not going to happen. JBW ( talk) 20:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
JBW Why release me from the blockade? If I continue to edit like this, please block me at a later time without notice But if in any case I make a mistake, if it is a new job, give me a message to correct that mistake So I will correct that mistake.I understand that the edit I have been blocked for will not cause any harm or interruption, and will instead make useful contributions.I also understood the reasons for blocking me.I beg you to give me a chance and I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit.My future edits will be completely different from what I have done so far And I beg you to give me a chance to free the block.I noticed the first notice to block JBW And I realized my editing was wrong.In the end I will refrain from the previous editing and through good editing I want to prove myself right once.I changed my signature.I apologize for all my mistakes Next I want to prove myself through good deeds that I will not make mistakes again next time. Vedbas ( talk) 08:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JBW: Please unblock. Give me a chance. I understand my mistake. Vedbas ( talk) 14:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JBW: my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. Vedbas ( talk) 03:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
JBWPlease release me from the block. Vedbas ( talk) 13:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. Also I followed the advice of JBW Unblock. I beg you to give me a chance and I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit.My future edits will be completely different from what I have done so far And I beg you to give me a chance to free the block.I noticed the first notice to block JBW And I realized my editing was wrong.In the end I will refrain from the previous editing and through good editing I want to prove myself right once.I apologize for all my mistakes Next I want to prove myself through good deeds that I will not make mistakes again next time. Vedbas ( talk) 10:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Despite repeated pointers by experienecd editors, you fail to do any of the following: actually be specific in your appeal. "Disruptive editing" is just the words in the block notice, we want to see that you actually can say, in your own words, what made you disruptive and exactly how you'll avoid that in the future. You also don't respond to other concerns raised on the page (excepting the signature note). You say you are a mediawiki dev - I'm also not sure any MW dev could be as lacking in knowledge in some of the core functionality of the primary site that uses it. Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (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.
Vedbas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
my Blocked for Wikipedia: Disruptive editing My mistake was Flush edits Freed from the siege, I would like to revise the article and create new articles And I followed the Disruptive editing guidelines And understood. I understand the Nosebagbear statement but I understand my mistake so I am requesting to give me a chance to release the block I will not add any more disruptive editing elements to the encyclopedia. I want to make a good contribution and it will be completely different from the previous edit. Vedbas ( talk) 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Closing as it's been over a month. You may make a new request. 331dot ( talk) 08:41, 14 August 2021 (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.
Thanks.
Google translate--
Thanks for allowing me to publish in my language I am proficient in Hindi and Bengali. I mean I have been blocked from continuing to edit Flush edits and destructive and I continue to edit on condition that skilled users warn me. That's why I've been blocked. But I did not understand when the skilled users gave me their warning message. Because then my notifications kept coming again and again because many users thank me for this. But later I realized and then I was blocked. Later I followed the blocking guidelines and realized that my editing method was wrong. I will refrain from making such edits next time and if I am released from the block then from the current edit. There will be no matching of previous edits. I would like to create new pages and add categories and also edit pages. I'm sorry to continue editing without realizing it, I'm sorry and I'm asking for a chance.
What does "Flush" mean? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see [1] Vedbas ( talk) 10:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I was blocked from editing this. I request you to check the contributions.I can get out of the ublock here? Vedbas ( talk) 10:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)