User talk:Hoggardhigh

Hoggardhigh, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Hoggardhigh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serial comma[edit]

Please read WP:SERIAL and WP:BRD. I can see no ambiguity that requires to be resolved by a serial comma here. That you prefer the usage the comma is not sufficient reason to change an existing, acceptable style of punctuation. If you have an argument for the necessity for the comma, per BRD please discuss it here rather than just reverting. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing this and engage at talk if you feel you have a point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop doing this, particularly as you now appear to be trying to conceal this superfluous style change in an edit to introduce an active grammatical error (unless the grammar is correct but your factual understanding of the subject wrong). Your new wording incorrectly states that wound strings are put on after having removed the lighter ones, although I assume you think it means the opposite. You can either say that we "replace the heavy strings with the light ones" or "substitute the light strings for the heavy" but "substitute the heavy for the light" means the opposite. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. An edit that you recently made to Cinemark Theatres seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 01:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Jensen Ackles. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 01:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

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. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you still aren't using edit summaries. It really does help other editors when you do. - Bri (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alex Chilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sherbert. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hoggardhigh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ride Like the Wind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial commas[edit]

Please read MOS:SERIAL immediately. If you insist on adding the so-called Oxford comma indiscriminately, you may be blocked from editing—especially given your previous warnings for this activity. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Ike Altgens. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:EW immediately. "Because I like it" is insufficient reason to violate policy. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hoggardhigh. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond there or you'll probably wind up blocked from editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so ignoring the concerns of other editors and continuing on as if they don't exist is not an option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hoggardhigh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to make useful contributions.

Decline reason:

We will not unblock until it is clear that you understand why you were blocked, and after that follows some more stuff. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"I want to make useful contributions" is appreciated, but unconvincing. Being useful involves an understanding of policy; an understanding of the rules of engagement; an understanding that collaboration means editors improve themselves—and, most vitally, the encyclopedia—by learning from each other. Being useful does not involve imposing your definition of "useful" to the exclusion of all others. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hi Hoggardhigh.

Your unblock request request is the first time we've heard you you speak. OK, so now we know you can. As a general rule, every single time someone writes something on your talk page, you should usually respond.

OK, I understand where you are coming from with the commas. I agree with you, actually. However, the rule about stuff like this here is "leave it alone". The comma thing is covered at WP:SERIAL. (Similarly, if you find the (English spelling) "colour" in an article, don't change it to the (American spelling) "color", and so forth, as a general rule (this is covered at WP:ENGVAR); and so forth). In fact, as a general rule, consider not making any changes that are just grammar or punctuation or minor wording changes. (If there is an actual error, such that everyone would agree that it is an error rather than a matter of preference, that's different.)

Otherwise, we would have people putting stuff back and forth to the way they personally like it. Do you see how that would not be productive?

Second, if you do make an edit, and someone reverts it, stop. Do not just put your edit back. We can't have people editing like, it is called "edit warring" and is bad (see WP:EW for details. Instead, you should probably just let it go and move on to something else. Or, if you don't want to let it go, go to the talk page and write something like "I made such-and-such edit, and another editor reverted it, but I think it's a good edit, and here's why: __________________________. And I invite the other editor to discuss this and let's see if we can decide what's best" or whatever. See WP:BRD for details on this.

OK, you want to make useful contributions. So let's see... I'm a little rusty on this myself. Why not go over to the Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask around about what needs doing? They're nice people. Now, for practice, you could you please respond to this message in some manner. Herostratus (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial comma[edit]

How is use of the serial comma on Wikipedia considered vandalism or disruptive editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoggardhigh (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, it's not. But when you keep on doing it when people raise objections and don't acknowledge these concerns then it becomes #4 in this list: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoggardhigh. Some people like to use the serial comma, and some don't. It's a matter of personal taste. OK, now suppose we have an article that uses the serial comma. And an editor goes "well, I don't like it" and changes it. And then another editor goes "but I do like it" and changes it back. And then the first editor changes it again. And so forth, forever and ever, constantly, across all our articles.

Do you think that would be a good way to run a project like this? Can you think of some ways how that might not be the best way to run a project like this?

Thank you for using your talk page. By the way, you can sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your repeated additions of a serial comma to the Nashville tuning (high strung) article on principle because it is a pointless style change, not because I deprecate, or advocate, its use. I would have reverted the action had the sentence originally included a serial comma and you had removed it. Changes to perfectly valid spellings or punctuation for no other reason than personal preference are not helpful and likely to cause warring, wasting the time of editors which could be better applied addressing matters of substance. Three times I tried to engage with you to explain a valid reason for your edit but you did not respond and simply repeated the edit, latterly trying to hide it alongside largely superfluous edits at other parts of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same behavior?[edit]

Hoggardhigh, would you be kind enough to explain to me, NeilN, Herostratus and Mutt Lunker why your edits today to He'll Have to Go, I Just Called to Say I Love You, Honey Don't, Tex Ritter and Henry Thomas somehow differ from your recent history of making mostly minor edits in order to replace—again—the serial comma? —ATS 🖖 talk 03:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Why are you just ignoring everyone who is reaching out to you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:NOTHERE. Damned lucky it's not an indef, I think. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make your unblock appeal here, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False death reports[edit]

Is falsely reporting someone's death on Wikipedia considered disruptive editing, vandalism, or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoggardhigh (talk • contribs) 21:31, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Yes. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 05:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it considered, vandalism or disruptive editing?--Hoggardhigh (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If deliberately false, it's vandalism. If careless and tenuous, it's disruptive. If it's just a one-time mistake, it's just a mistake. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What is this in reference to, specifically? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Please stop editing other people's comments. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think the user has no ability to help themself, or is doing it deliberately. Either way, we should help them, permanently. - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Grumman F7F Tigercat.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You've been asked to stop adding serial commas, been blocked for it, and yet you continue. Please stop. BilCat (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Johnny Echols. Disruptive additions of serial commas after multiple warnings and two blocks. BilCat (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Hoggardhigh. BilCat (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle with commas or any comments here again and I will block you indefinitely and remove talk page access. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself lucky—I'd've indeffed you already. It's not often I see more blatant examples of POINT and NOTHERE than this. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Comma/Manual of Style[edit]

In what ways, specifically, does use of the serial comma contradict the Manual of Style?

It doesn't. Read what it says in the Manual of Style here; "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent; however, there are times when the serial comma can create or remove confusion:"

So the serial comma is not proscribed or prescribed. But selectively dipping into articles to change bits to suit your own personal tastes is;

inconsistent and messy
a pointless waste of time
selfish

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you keep asking this question when it's already been answered—and repeatedly—demonstrates a child-like obstinacy that does a far better job of arguing for your block than I ever could. Nevertheless, since I apparently enjoy wasting my time, let's see if I can connect the dots for you.

The operative verb in the passage Editors may use either convention is "use"; the correct verb to describe your edits is "change". Since the comma is, as Escape Orbit and others have noted, neither prescribed nor proscribed, changes to existing text are particularly subject to conformity with the comma's stated purpose: internal (within each article) consistency and/or clarity. In other words, do not change them unless you can clearly demonstrate that the change is in line with that purpose.

To change punctuation for no reason other than your personal preference violates MYWAY; to continue doing so violates POINT, which resulted in your blocks. To do so repeatedly within the same articles violates EW, which can lead to an indefinite block.

All of which ends with one question: are you here to help build an encyclopedia? If you are not, you should find another hobby—and you are doing a fine job of convincing the rest of us that you are not. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits[edit]

I noticed that my recent edits to TitleMax, TMX Finance, Pat Upton (singer), and Where Have All the Flowers Gone? have been reverted, even though my Notifications page doesn't mention any of these reverts. Can someone explain this?

Thanks

See commentary above. And please, sign your posts. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by, "see commentary above"?--Hoggardhigh (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He misunderstood your question, Hoggardhigh. He thought you were asking "why were my edits reverted" (you know why) when your actual question was "why didn't these reversions show up in on my notifications page?" The answer is, reversions to your edits don't necessarily show up on your notifications page -- depending on how they were done.

On TitleMax (I didn't check the others), your edit was not reverted, but rather the editor went in and undid part of it by hand (the comma). He kept part of your edit, where you corrected "lender" to "lenders" -- and thank you for that! That was good, and helpful! When and if you come back in a month, let's see more of that sort of thing, and not the fershluginer comma nonsense.

You can watchlist articles you are interested in, also. That way, any changes to the article -- including any type of reversion or revision of your edits -- will show up when you check your watchlist. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet editing[edit]

Please stop creating new accounts, like User:AFROBINSON808, to make your comma edits. This will only result in the block on this account being extended. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 17:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 05:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hoggardhigh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit that I have (ab)used numerous accounts in the past, not to mention edited under various IPs/IP ranges after I was (globally) blocked. I only did all of this because I did not know that it was still possible to request an unblock on my original account after it was (b)locked, even if globally. As for why the account was locked globally? The only reason I vandalized all of those wikis was that I didn't know, then, that there would be consequences for that. Long story short: I promise never to create any new accounts, or even edit under another IP address, before a final decision has been made. Also, if my account gets unblocked locally as well as unlocked globally, I promise to contribute more constructively than I have in the past. Finally, seeing as my account is locked globally (hence why I am making this request under an IP address), I would like to know if someone here can get in touch with a global admin who can unlock my (original) account once a final decision has been made.

Decline reason:

This is disingenuous, as you have had 3 accounts confirmed as socks in March of this year. You would need to show you would not edit Wikipedia under any IP for I would suggest at least 1 year before requesting an unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hoggardhigh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Maybe the account can't be unblocked now, but my main concern is the possibility of getting it unlocked globally, because that would enable me to request a new unblock, under my original account, at a much later date. Does anyone here know a global admin who can take care of that (globally unlocking my original account)?

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. I'm also deeply, deeply concerned by what you've said here. You seem to be saying you are only willing to consider acting appropriately if there are consequences for your inappropriate behaviour. You further say you violated our policies, evaded your block, set up multiple sockpuppet accounts because... you thought we wouldn't consider unblocking you because of your past behaviour, so why bother? Really, you sound exactly like the sort of editor we simply don't want here. I'd suggest any steward should leave your global lock in place. Yamla (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you want to request a global unblock, you have to do so here on Meta. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To note, there has also been recent activity as User:173.93.110.93. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]