Hello, I'm
99.12.243.171. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
99.12.243.171 (
talk)
16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
99.12.243.171. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
99.12.243.171 (
talk)
16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Edge Games, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
McGeddon (
talk)
14:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at
Talk:Edge Games, please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. czar ♔ 18:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It'd help the conversation at Talk:Edge Games if you could explicitly clarify whether or not you have a conflict of interest with regards to the company, just so we know where we all stand. Having a connection to the company is fine, it just means you should follow WP:COIADVICE and largely avoid editing the article directly, although you'd still be welcome to remove material that "unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy". -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Please sign any post you make on a talk page, it makes life for everyone else so much easier. If you need help, please read WP:SIGHOW which explains how to do it. Thanks. - X201 ( talk) 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
ferret (
talk)
19:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Your every edit appears to be in regards to POV push views related to Edge. It doesn't really appear you're absorbing any of the advice or warnings given to you on our policies and guidelines related to sourcing, neutral writing, etc. It just looks like you're pushing a singular agenda without much subtlety.
Wikipedia is not the place to "Right Great Wrongs". It's not the place to settle grudges or whitewash history. And yet your every edit feels much more like that than someone interested in writing an encyclopedia.
So, I guess this is my way of saying "let's get this wrapped up". You're exhausting the community with all this, and you're not here for the right reasons. If you need to make a closing comment, great, but otherwise, it's time to move on to something else, as this is getting disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I corrected the date of formation of this company and was blocked. Discussion ensued in talk and the date was changed according to the information I drew editors attention to. There was thus no reason to block me. All we needed was a discussion in talk to agree the edit. Note that in 2014 I discussed edits to this same page and never did an edit others did not agree to. I was not blocked then as I acted in accord with guidelines at all times. I have acted in accord with editing guidelines at all times here since I explained and justified my edit. And eventually my edit was accepted in modified form Vertisis ( talk) 17:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Vertisis ( talk) 17:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
ScottishFinnishRadish did not give me any warning before blocking all my privileges (not just to a specific page). I have carefully followed guidelines on editing and never acted other than in accord. I have been having reasonable discussions in two pages' talk sections, and reasonable fact based discussion should not be blocked without good reason. There is no good reason here since open fact based discussion, with sources as I have been doing, should be encouraged not prevented. I did invite one other editor to join a discussion and it was not to encourage a specific view and I apologize if anyone thought that was what I was doing. I only wished a prior active editor on a page to rejoin the discussion should they wish to do so Vertisis ( talk) 1:27 pm, 21 May 2023, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
You had plenty of warnings that a block was coming. Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- Deepfriedokra asked me to reply to him and the system tells me I can only do so by editing this appeal block. In reply to Deepfriedokra:
I was not blocked for editing anything as the record shows. I was blocked for having a discussion in "talk" about what future edits would be appropriate on two pages (EDGE GAMES and TRADEMARK TROLL). I was told my discussions of possible edits were being disruptive, but the discussions were entirely healthy exchanges of opinion, and in my case, at least, were supported by numerous secondary source cites to back my proposed changes. Nothing I was writing in the "talk" sections justified totally blocking me from writing in any talk section anywhere on Wikipedia. In the past we have had a number of editors join in "talk" and we only make an edit to the page when there is agreement to do so among the editors. We did this approach in 2014 for this same page. Other editors are currently being invited to join the discussion on these two pages "talk" sections and I see no justification for blocking me from taking part in the discussions given no edit would (or should) be made to either page without consensus of the editors discussing edits in "talk". Please reinstate me and let me continue the reasonable discussions. I was not doing edits when blocked and wasnt warned I'd be blocked because of edits I had made. I assure you I won't make edits to pages, I only wish to be part of the process of editors discussing potential future edits, which is a reasonable ask and not in any way contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Vertisis ( talk)
@ Deepfriedokra I don't understand. You literally asked me to reply: "Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks."
Are you saying the only way I can give you that reply to your questions is to open a new unblock request? When I am being warned not to make numerous repeat unblock requests? This system doesn't make sense. Please clarify how I reply to your questions. Vertisis ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
ferret Thank you for your response. I have now signed my prior entry and apologize for not doing so before. I will heed your advice and not appeal the block for the time being. However, deleting the perfectly good statement and cite that Langdell said he has only sued 2 people since 1990 was an unsupported edit that should be reversed. That was not a disagreement with my sourcing or interpretations, it was a simple fact that there is no source that shows the deleted statement was out of date and thus it should be put back in, in my opinion which I believe is neutral and unbiased. Vertisis ( talk) .
Edge Games also dismissed allegations that it's "lawsuit happy", stating that prior to 2009 it hadn't sued anyone other than Future. In fact, Edge Games itself was sued twice, once by Velocity Micro and once by Cybernet Systems.. It never said "Edge has only sued 2 people since 1990". So not only was the statement out of date, it was also unsourced and failed verification. -- ferret ( talk) 19:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
ferret Sorry but I cannot allow a clear error like that go uncommented on. Read further down the deleted cite and you will see it says: ""Edge does not make a habit of taking legal action over the Edge mark: in the past 20 years Edge has only ever taken only two legal actions: one against Future Publishing (in 1994) and a second against EA (in 2010) - and the latter was because Future required them to do so." So Langdell did state that it had only sued two people in the past 20 years. The deleted edit was entirely correct, WAS SUPPORTED by the cite (was sourced) and there is no reason to believe it is out of date since there is no more recent source mentioning any new lawsuits since 2011 when the source article was published. The deleted text and delete source should be put back. And if you are critical of my responding then you really do need to think about how you are editing pages since my recommendation was entirely reasonable and accurate and is not deserving of any rebuke. Vertisis ( talk)
I'm not getting involved in this, but I just want to point out how bad you're making yourself look from the viewpoint of a Wikipedia Admin.
I know it may not be intuitive to you, but from the "Wikipedia culture" perspective, this is a very bad sequence of events. Its hard to imagine a worse attempt to getting unblocked. I know you probably won't listen, but I can't help but tell you that you're not even close to being on the right track. If you want to get unblocked, there's all sorts of guidance at WP:UNBLOCK. What you're doing here is absolutely not the way though. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward Vertisis ( talk) 21:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is better, but please be more specific. Which rules did you violate? What will you change in the future? Many people say they will observe the rules and then go back to doing the exact same thing they were blocked for. To ensure that you understand the issues here, we need to see a specific reply. 331dot ( talk) 13:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward. More specifically, I acknowledge that it appeared I was responding from a POV and trying to push an agenda, for which I deeply apologize and assure that I will not do it again. I also acknowledge that I had warnings about disengaging because it was perceived my posts were being disruptive, and that I made the gross error of not immediately disengaging and instead spending time trying to justify what I did which I now realize was very wrong of me. I will not do that again and while I sincerely do not believe any posts I would do in future would be considered disruptive, or POV/pushing an agenda, should I ever be asked to disengage I shall do so immediately when asked. Again, I deeply apologize and if reinstated will not commit any of these offences again.
Decline reason:
You're a COI only/spam only account. Even if you were sorry for the past problems, the risk of unblocking you at this point is greater than the potential benefits. Basically the only way you can be unblocked is by saying you'd only edit things completely unrelated to past edits such as the history of medieval European kale consumption (a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point.) TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Vertisis ( talk) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward. More specifically, I acknowledge that it appeared I was responding from a POV and trying to push an agenda, for which I deeply apologize and assure that I will not do it again. I also acknowledge that I had warnings about disengaging because it was perceived my posts were being disruptive, and that I made the gross error of not immediately disengaging and instead spending time trying to justify what I did which I now realize was very wrong of me. I will not do that again and while I sincerely do not believe any posts I would do in future would be considered disruptive, or POV/pushing an agenda, should I ever be asked to disengage I shall do so immediately when asked. Again, I deeply apologize and if reinstated will not commit any of these offences again. And, responding to @ TonyBallioni I commit to not editing the pages I was editing when I was blocked. In future I will edit other pages that I believe require editing, or will (more likely) make suggestions as to edits in the page's talk, seeking agreement from others before an edit is made in the main page itself. I cannot, though, commit to editing pages dealing with kale, that is too much to ask of me. Vertisis ( talk) 16:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural close due to non-response to my question below. User may open a new unblock request upon their return. Z1720 ( talk) 18:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello, I'm
99.12.243.171. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
99.12.243.171 (
talk)
16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
99.12.243.171. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
99.12.243.171 (
talk)
16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Edge Games, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
McGeddon (
talk)
14:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at
Talk:Edge Games, please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. czar ♔ 18:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It'd help the conversation at Talk:Edge Games if you could explicitly clarify whether or not you have a conflict of interest with regards to the company, just so we know where we all stand. Having a connection to the company is fine, it just means you should follow WP:COIADVICE and largely avoid editing the article directly, although you'd still be welcome to remove material that "unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy". -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Please sign any post you make on a talk page, it makes life for everyone else so much easier. If you need help, please read WP:SIGHOW which explains how to do it. Thanks. - X201 ( talk) 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
ferret (
talk)
19:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Your every edit appears to be in regards to POV push views related to Edge. It doesn't really appear you're absorbing any of the advice or warnings given to you on our policies and guidelines related to sourcing, neutral writing, etc. It just looks like you're pushing a singular agenda without much subtlety.
Wikipedia is not the place to "Right Great Wrongs". It's not the place to settle grudges or whitewash history. And yet your every edit feels much more like that than someone interested in writing an encyclopedia.
So, I guess this is my way of saying "let's get this wrapped up". You're exhausting the community with all this, and you're not here for the right reasons. If you need to make a closing comment, great, but otherwise, it's time to move on to something else, as this is getting disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I corrected the date of formation of this company and was blocked. Discussion ensued in talk and the date was changed according to the information I drew editors attention to. There was thus no reason to block me. All we needed was a discussion in talk to agree the edit. Note that in 2014 I discussed edits to this same page and never did an edit others did not agree to. I was not blocked then as I acted in accord with guidelines at all times. I have acted in accord with editing guidelines at all times here since I explained and justified my edit. And eventually my edit was accepted in modified form Vertisis ( talk) 17:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Vertisis ( talk) 17:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
ScottishFinnishRadish did not give me any warning before blocking all my privileges (not just to a specific page). I have carefully followed guidelines on editing and never acted other than in accord. I have been having reasonable discussions in two pages' talk sections, and reasonable fact based discussion should not be blocked without good reason. There is no good reason here since open fact based discussion, with sources as I have been doing, should be encouraged not prevented. I did invite one other editor to join a discussion and it was not to encourage a specific view and I apologize if anyone thought that was what I was doing. I only wished a prior active editor on a page to rejoin the discussion should they wish to do so Vertisis ( talk) 1:27 pm, 21 May 2023, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
You had plenty of warnings that a block was coming. Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- Deepfriedokra asked me to reply to him and the system tells me I can only do so by editing this appeal block. In reply to Deepfriedokra:
I was not blocked for editing anything as the record shows. I was blocked for having a discussion in "talk" about what future edits would be appropriate on two pages (EDGE GAMES and TRADEMARK TROLL). I was told my discussions of possible edits were being disruptive, but the discussions were entirely healthy exchanges of opinion, and in my case, at least, were supported by numerous secondary source cites to back my proposed changes. Nothing I was writing in the "talk" sections justified totally blocking me from writing in any talk section anywhere on Wikipedia. In the past we have had a number of editors join in "talk" and we only make an edit to the page when there is agreement to do so among the editors. We did this approach in 2014 for this same page. Other editors are currently being invited to join the discussion on these two pages "talk" sections and I see no justification for blocking me from taking part in the discussions given no edit would (or should) be made to either page without consensus of the editors discussing edits in "talk". Please reinstate me and let me continue the reasonable discussions. I was not doing edits when blocked and wasnt warned I'd be blocked because of edits I had made. I assure you I won't make edits to pages, I only wish to be part of the process of editors discussing potential future edits, which is a reasonable ask and not in any way contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Vertisis ( talk)
@ Deepfriedokra I don't understand. You literally asked me to reply: "Please describe how your edits merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. Thanks."
Are you saying the only way I can give you that reply to your questions is to open a new unblock request? When I am being warned not to make numerous repeat unblock requests? This system doesn't make sense. Please clarify how I reply to your questions. Vertisis ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
ferret Thank you for your response. I have now signed my prior entry and apologize for not doing so before. I will heed your advice and not appeal the block for the time being. However, deleting the perfectly good statement and cite that Langdell said he has only sued 2 people since 1990 was an unsupported edit that should be reversed. That was not a disagreement with my sourcing or interpretations, it was a simple fact that there is no source that shows the deleted statement was out of date and thus it should be put back in, in my opinion which I believe is neutral and unbiased. Vertisis ( talk) .
Edge Games also dismissed allegations that it's "lawsuit happy", stating that prior to 2009 it hadn't sued anyone other than Future. In fact, Edge Games itself was sued twice, once by Velocity Micro and once by Cybernet Systems.. It never said "Edge has only sued 2 people since 1990". So not only was the statement out of date, it was also unsourced and failed verification. -- ferret ( talk) 19:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
ferret Sorry but I cannot allow a clear error like that go uncommented on. Read further down the deleted cite and you will see it says: ""Edge does not make a habit of taking legal action over the Edge mark: in the past 20 years Edge has only ever taken only two legal actions: one against Future Publishing (in 1994) and a second against EA (in 2010) - and the latter was because Future required them to do so." So Langdell did state that it had only sued two people in the past 20 years. The deleted edit was entirely correct, WAS SUPPORTED by the cite (was sourced) and there is no reason to believe it is out of date since there is no more recent source mentioning any new lawsuits since 2011 when the source article was published. The deleted text and delete source should be put back. And if you are critical of my responding then you really do need to think about how you are editing pages since my recommendation was entirely reasonable and accurate and is not deserving of any rebuke. Vertisis ( talk)
I'm not getting involved in this, but I just want to point out how bad you're making yourself look from the viewpoint of a Wikipedia Admin.
I know it may not be intuitive to you, but from the "Wikipedia culture" perspective, this is a very bad sequence of events. Its hard to imagine a worse attempt to getting unblocked. I know you probably won't listen, but I can't help but tell you that you're not even close to being on the right track. If you want to get unblocked, there's all sorts of guidance at WP:UNBLOCK. What you're doing here is absolutely not the way though. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward Vertisis ( talk) 21:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is better, but please be more specific. Which rules did you violate? What will you change in the future? Many people say they will observe the rules and then go back to doing the exact same thing they were blocked for. To ensure that you understand the issues here, we need to see a specific reply. 331dot ( talk) 13:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward. More specifically, I acknowledge that it appeared I was responding from a POV and trying to push an agenda, for which I deeply apologize and assure that I will not do it again. I also acknowledge that I had warnings about disengaging because it was perceived my posts were being disruptive, and that I made the gross error of not immediately disengaging and instead spending time trying to justify what I did which I now realize was very wrong of me. I will not do that again and while I sincerely do not believe any posts I would do in future would be considered disruptive, or POV/pushing an agenda, should I ever be asked to disengage I shall do so immediately when asked. Again, I deeply apologize and if reinstated will not commit any of these offences again.
Decline reason:
You're a COI only/spam only account. Even if you were sorry for the past problems, the risk of unblocking you at this point is greater than the potential benefits. Basically the only way you can be unblocked is by saying you'd only edit things completely unrelated to past edits such as the history of medieval European kale consumption (a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point.) TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Vertisis ( talk) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Vertisis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sincerely sorry for not properly following guidelines and rules. If unblocked I will diligently follow all guidelines and rules going forward. More specifically, I acknowledge that it appeared I was responding from a POV and trying to push an agenda, for which I deeply apologize and assure that I will not do it again. I also acknowledge that I had warnings about disengaging because it was perceived my posts were being disruptive, and that I made the gross error of not immediately disengaging and instead spending time trying to justify what I did which I now realize was very wrong of me. I will not do that again and while I sincerely do not believe any posts I would do in future would be considered disruptive, or POV/pushing an agenda, should I ever be asked to disengage I shall do so immediately when asked. Again, I deeply apologize and if reinstated will not commit any of these offences again. And, responding to @ TonyBallioni I commit to not editing the pages I was editing when I was blocked. In future I will edit other pages that I believe require editing, or will (more likely) make suggestions as to edits in the page's talk, seeking agreement from others before an edit is made in the main page itself. I cannot, though, commit to editing pages dealing with kale, that is too much to ask of me. Vertisis ( talk) 16:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural close due to non-response to my question below. User may open a new unblock request upon their return. Z1720 ( talk) 18:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.