User talk:Tvx1

11:52:55, 18 April 2016 review of submission by Mohit Rajani8

• Mohit Rajani8 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Impelsys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Tvx1, Can you please tell me minimum how many reference links should be there for new article creation? Is there any terms or conditions for this? I have seen some other articles which have very few links but still it'll be there on space. for example: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenta" So, can you please explain me this how and why? And also please guide me if someone like me want to create article which have very few sources or one could not find it but whatever information and knowledge individuals have they want to go with that then what are the suggestions from your end?

18:03:38, 26 January 2017 review of submission by 24.60.203.149

• 24.60.203.149 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wondering what is wrong with sources like the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, San Facisco Chronicle, Music Web International etc?

Two articles needing translation

Tvx1, last year I created articles on two significant buildings in Europe: Wohnpark Alterlaa in Vienna, Australia (a residential complex), and the Tribunal de Paris, in Paris, France (among the world's tallest courthouses). Last month, these articles were moved to the draftspace by Boleyn because they did not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published in the English Wikipedia. I decided to go to the "Translators Available" page, and upon doing so, I saw your name under both the "French-to-English" and "German-to-English" sections. I put expansion-translation templates on both of those articles, hoping that somebody would expand them using text from the foreign-language versions of them. I was wondering if you, Tvx1, could be the person to handle a task like this. Thank you. Jim856796 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Racing Point F1 Team

A tag has been placed on Draft:Racing Point F1 Team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Page already exists in main space as the reviewer pointed out

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SSSB (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Stuggart Open

Don't send me a message threatening me with get a block. why don't you get a block ? who says you are right ?.31.200.143.195 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines say that. See WP:DTT.Tvx1 11:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

what are the issues at hand what is the problem ?. there was no problem before so why is it an issue now ?. 31.200.143.195 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense what you sent to me no problems with that layout and I want it changed back ok. This format has been used in many events and no one started messing with formats bar you ! 31.200.143.195 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because it wasn't noticed by anyone before doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. I have linked to relevant guideline many times now (WP:DTT)) so please at last make the effort to read them. Table-wide column headers are to be avoided with high priority. My edits do not make these table more difficult to read and helps a lot of other readers. What you personally want is of no matter here. As for the "many events" claim. I cannot find many other ournament articles on tournament which changed their surfaces at some point having tables with the surfaces as a table-wide column header, like it dealt with in the Stuttgart article, in them. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tvx1 11:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

told you 31.200.139.185 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for trying to help regarding Arsenal W.F.C.. Luckily the FFD discussion is going well so hopefully it's not long before we can finally fix the logo. Eightball (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Hi Tvx1. This is a gentle request to please refrain from wikilawyering/misrepresenting policy and harassing/threatening other editors, like you are doing here. This issue is now (and has been) moot since it is being discussed at FfD. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL. Thanks, FASTILY 03:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have not been wikilaywering not misrepresenting any policy. I also don't know how I'm harassing, let alone threatening, anyone (please point out where I issued a direct threat over this to anyone). And where have I written anything uncivil?? We are just having a constructive discussion with explicit in order to explain our concerns. This aggressive warning is imho unnecessarily exacerbating the situation.Tvx1 10:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you know full well what you're doing, and this is unacceptable behavior. I gave you the option to back down and drop the stick, but you turned around and immediately continued haranguing other editors over the exact thing I told you not to do, not once, but twice. That said, you may be unblocked anytime you a) decide you are prepared to contribute in a constructive and collegial manner (without harassing others), and b) prove to us that you have read and understand WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS/WP:IDHT. Thank you, FASTILY 00:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tvx1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I really think that blocking me indefinitly over this minor issue is a massive overreaction. I did not disrepect WP:CONSENSUS. I did not even edit-war on the relevant article. And I followed the consensus process by letting the AN and FFD discussion run their cause. I also did not harass or intended to harass the administrator I have talked with on their talk page and they have not complained I did. Nothing of what I wrote there was intimidating or threatening or even uncivil to that administrator. My main intention there was to alleviate my concerns on User:Marchjuly's behavior in such cases because I'm genuinely concerned that said user behvavior if repeated might lead to more similar and mostly unnecessary ANI reports. I just feel that there is a better, more colleborative and constructive way to deal with such cases. That's all I intended to achieve, and unfortunately I feel I have been completely misunderstood. So I really hope my edit rights are restored because I really want to move on from this dispute. This nothing I ever wanted to lose my edit rights over.Tvx1 12:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I really think that blocking me indefinitly over this minor issue is a massive overreaction. I did not disrepect WP:CONSENSUS. I did not even edit-war on the relevant article. And I followed the consensus process by letting the AN and FFD discussion run their cause. I also did not harass or intended to harass the administrator I have talked with on their talk page and they have not complained I did. Nothing of what I wrote there was intimidating or threatening or even uncivil to that administrator. My main intention there was to alleviate my concerns on User:Marchjuly's behavior in such cases because I'm genuinely concerned that said user behvavior if repeated might lead to more similar and mostly unnecessary ANI reports. I just feel that there is a better, more colleborative and constructive way to deal with such cases. That's all I intended to achieve, and unfortunately I feel I have been completely misunderstood. So I really hope my edit rights are restored because I really want to move on from this dispute. This nothing I ever wanted to lose my edit rights over.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 12:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I really think that blocking me indefinitly over this minor issue is a massive overreaction. I did not disrepect WP:CONSENSUS. I did not even edit-war on the relevant article. And I followed the consensus process by letting the AN and FFD discussion run their cause. I also did not harass or intended to harass the administrator I have talked with on their talk page and they have not complained I did. Nothing of what I wrote there was intimidating or threatening or even uncivil to that administrator. My main intention there was to alleviate my concerns on User:Marchjuly's behavior in such cases because I'm genuinely concerned that said user behvavior if repeated might lead to more similar and mostly unnecessary ANI reports. I just feel that there is a better, more colleborative and constructive way to deal with such cases. That's all I intended to achieve, and unfortunately I feel I have been completely misunderstood. So I really hope my edit rights are restored because I really want to move on from this dispute. This nothing I ever wanted to lose my edit rights over.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 12:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I really think that blocking me indefinitly over this minor issue is a massive overreaction. I did not disrepect WP:CONSENSUS. I did not even edit-war on the relevant article. And I followed the consensus process by letting the AN and FFD discussion run their cause. I also did not harass or intended to harass the administrator I have talked with on their talk page and they have not complained I did. Nothing of what I wrote there was intimidating or threatening or even uncivil to that administrator. My main intention there was to alleviate my concerns on User:Marchjuly's behavior in such cases because I'm genuinely concerned that said user behvavior if repeated might lead to more similar and mostly unnecessary ANI reports. I just feel that there is a better, more colleborative and constructive way to deal with such cases. That's all I intended to achieve, and unfortunately I feel I have been completely misunderstood. So I really hope my edit rights are restored because I really want to move on from this dispute. This nothing I ever wanted to lose my edit rights over.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 12:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• I'd like to request that the reviewing admin please not unblock this user yet, as I believe they intend to repeat the same WP:PLAYPOLICY/battleground behavior that led me to block them in the first place. Tvx1's unblock request demonstrates a poor understanding of the block rationale, and they are still blaming others as justification for their own misbehavior. I'll gladly advocate for an unblock provided that Tvx1 has demonstrated they fully understand the reasons for this block and agrees to the unblock conditions stated above: a) decide you are prepared to contribute in a constructive and collegial manner (without harassing others), and b) prove to us that you have read and understand WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS/WP:IDHT. -FASTILY 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not seeing it. Not sure what you need from the editor.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Dlohcierekim. You'll find the relevant discussions here, here, and here. tl;dr Tvx1 harassed/threatened @Explicit and @Marchjuly over a past FfD closure (with WP:NFCC implications), wikilawyering/cherry-picking policy and deliberately misrepresenting the situation to justify ignoring the outcome of said FfD discussion. -FASTILY 11:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Can you please point to a diff of me actually issuing a threat to either of these persons? I really don't see where I did and I certainly did not intend to do so. The only reason why I discussed with them on their talk pages is because I genuinely believe that there are a number of ways, like I outlined below, with which these situations can be dealt with much more collaboratively and constructively and I had the ultimate goal of preventing situations like these of occurring in the future. I have no battleground intentions at all. The edit I made to the article in question was solely intended to create a neutral, conservative version (it's non-free content after all) pending outcome of the discussions. Note that another administrator agreed in the AN thread that the article should have been changed to have no logo at all. And it was solely to implement that that I made my edits to the article.Tvx1 11:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim. I'm really struggling to see it as well. I really don't understand how or where I misbehaved so badly that it justifies blocking me indefinitely. I'm accused of pretty serious harrassment, but if you look at the things written in the policy and compare to that to my edits you'll see that I did not threat, intimidate or insult anyone. I don't think I have even been insult. I'm not treating this as a battleground at all. I never in any way intended to harass administrator Explicit in any way by having a discussion with them on their talk page. If they felt harassed I apologize since that was never my intention. As I explained above my sole intention was to seek clarification on the relevant policies, because I genuinely believe that there is a much more collaborative and constructive way to deal with the addition of team crests to football articles than the destructive way that was chosen in this case which lead to an AN report that really never should have been. Unfortunately, I feel that I have been completely misunderstood there.Tvx1 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wonderful, I'm more confident you understand condition A. Now, have you familiarized yourself with WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS/WP:IDHT? Do you still believe that discussion is not required/optional if you disagree with the outcome of a previous FfD/XfD discussion? In the future, how will you conduct yourself in a situation like this? -FASTILY 10:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. I already explained that I understood these in my reply to your warning prior to the block. I have earlier initiated at FFD thread on a file that was removed from Brazilian national football team based on an older FFD discussion which a collegially, constructively and successfully led to the file being reinstated in said article. As for the question whether discussion is an absolute requirement to change a previous consensus achieved to discussion WP:CCC reads the following:

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

That part of policy clear states clearly that it allowed to propose a change of consensus through editing and that there a cases where discussion isn't a necessity. Moreover it uses the suggestive should instead of the normative must with regards to starting a new discussion. Based on that I firmly believe that editors have a number of collaborative and constructive to deal with a situation like the one dealt with here.

1. Upon an editor readding a file to an article which was previously removed through FFD, another editor reviewing that edit could simply opt to agree that the evidence that the editor making the change presented is sufficient to make the old FFD no longer applicable to the present day real-life situation leave the edit be.
2. If seriously concerned about the right action being taken, the reviewing editor could start a new discussion themselves to gauge whether the evidence is really sufficient to support the change.
3. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, either party could simply contact the editor who closed the discussion and ask them to review their close in light of the new evidence. At that point the closing editor genuinely can decide that the evidence is enough justification for the old discussion to no longer be applicable and support the file now being used in the article
4. If the reviewing editor does revert (not preferable), the reverted editor should simply start a discussion presenting their evidence that the file can now be used in the aritcle. The reverted should not re-revert. If they do re-revert (least desired), the reviewing editor should not revert yet again (per WP:BRD) and certainly now start a new discussion. A visit to WP:RPP is an option at this point as well (although it would be really preferred that doesn't get to that point at all)

So I genuinely believe that there are a genuine number of options available to deal with such a situation which could have avoided this entire mess we ended up in that in my opinion unnecessarily led to two users being indefinitely blocked. It should not have come to that point.Tvx1 11:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, is their any chance you'll review my block and unblock request?Tvx1 12:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Fastily: Thanks for your note. Have your concerns been adequately answered? Is there anything else to consider? Thanks,   Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, this user has literally just claimed (again!) that XfD/FfD discussions are not binding and may be unilaterally overturned whenever one feels like it, no new discussion/DRV required. That's 50% of the reason I blocked them, and I do not support an unblock until they correctly understand WP:CONSENSUS/WP:XFD. -FASTILY 21:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fastily and Dlohcierekim, no I did not claim that at all. I claimed that one can propose a new consensus through editing supporting their edit with strong evidence that for instance the real life situation has changed importantly. That is not the same as "unilaterally overturning a XfD/FfD discussion whenever one feels like". An old discussion can still be referred to in support of a revert. Although I firmly believe that no user is strictly forced to revert such a proposed new consensus through editing and can collegially opt to discuss constructively with the other editor and with the closer of the old discussion. Per my point 4 above I also clearly stated that if the editor who proposed the new consensus through editing is reverted they should not in any case unilaterally re-revert and at that point leave the article alone and focus on discussing. Can you please explain to my how any of the above ways I proposed to deal with such situations are uncollegial, uncolleborative and disruptive to the point you have to keep me block indefinitely at all cost?Tvx1 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• "one can propose a new consensus through editing supporting their edit with strong evidence". This is flat out wrong. Discussion for overturning a previous XfD/Ffd is mandatory. If this is lost on you, then you're never going to be unblocked. -FASTILY 21:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fastily, WP:CONSENSUS literally states the following in its CONSENUS CAN CHANGE section:

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

Can you please explain to me what I'm misunderstanding here? My comments with regards to my unblock request are based for an important part on that policy?Tvx1 21:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating myself. This has been explained to you, in-depth by @Explicit, here. But you probably don't care anyways, since you can only hear yourself. -FASTILY 22:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Fastily and Dlohcierekim can either of you link to content of the policy that I'm accused of not be willing to respect. The accusation that I don't care or only hear myself is just wrong. As I explained in my proposed suggestions above I do patently care that these situations are resolved as collegially and constructively as possible. Also note that in the last comment of the talk page section of administrator Explicit you linked to literally stated themselves that the initial edit adding the file was acceptable in the spirit of WP:BOLD, but that all efforts should have gone to discussing once one revert had happened. And that is exactly the same point I made here. I cannot stress enough that I do hear your concerns, that I do care and that I have no intentions whatsoever to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. This appears to be nothing but a misunderstanding and I'm certain we can resolve this.Tvx1 22:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fastily: I'm not sure the full details of this discussion but saying "Discussion for overturning a previous XfD/Ffd is mandatory" is not true at all neither in policy nor in practice. It is often handled that way, and most likely usually handled that way, but not always and not mandatory. There have been many non-notable tennis articles created where an xfd deletion discussion is a snowball for deletion, and it gets deleted. A year later, with new data, the article gets recreated and sticks. Are you talking xfd's that are extremely recent (days, weeks, maybe months)? Then you are probably closer to being correct, though I would hate to use the term mandatory. But certainly a year later, if a truckload of convincing evidence is presented, you wouldn't need a discussion to re-create. But that editor who re-creates an xfd (especially one who was involved during the original xfd) had better darned well have overwhelming convincing new data, lest the sky fall down on them for disruption. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click), thanks for your comment. The discussion in question is an FfD with WP:NFCC considerations. Given that NFCC is a policy with potential legal implications for the project, decisions should not be unilaterally overturned without a followup discussion, usually at either WP:DRV or a new WP:FFD. -FASTILY 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal implications are certainly part of exceptions (especially with files), but it should be pointed out by the closer of the Ffd that it is a legal issue at wikipedia and that special conditions will apply with regards to re-creation, lest any misunderstanding ensue. My comment was based on your blanket statement that also included xfd's (articles for deletion). Files are very different than articles. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Fastily, I fully understand that we need to be more conservative with non-free content. I will point out that neither me nor Eightball uploaded the relevant files to Wikipedia, but rather added an already present on Wikipedia file to an article. And I really believe that the options to deal with these situations I outlined above would not harm Wikipedia in any way as well as being as collegial as they can be. I do no see how I can prove my good-faith intentions for Wikipedia any more to you than by stressing to all of you that I fully intend to behave in this situations (which I will really want to avoid altogether in future) as Explicit requested in their last reply to me: It's acceptable to be bold, but if reverted the article should be left alone while a discussion is initiated dealing with the content in question.Tvx1 23:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, is there any chance you would be willing to review my block and unblock request irrespective of Fastily giving their personal approval. I really can't see how I can stress anymore that I have no intentions whatsoever to cause disruption, harm or legal troubles to Wikipedia in any way or form than with above. I also reached out to the administrator with whom I was having a discussion on their talk page to state I agree with their latest reply there to me. I really don't know what more I can do an why I continue to be dealt with so harshly.Tvx1 21:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• We need a wp:3o. I thought someone else would be along by now. Sorry. I blame the FramBan-Admin'sran causing a shortage. This problem is systemic. please opine on the issue of unblocking

@Oshwah, Drmies,  and NinjaRobotPilot: 21:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, your previous reply contains some sort of error message. I'm not really sure what the intent was, but if you tried to ping someone I'm not sure it worked.Tvx1 21:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Need to stop. now.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, it looks like it would take at least an hour just to read up on the background, and I'm not even especially familiar with NFCC or FFD. Tvx1, I guess I have two comments:

1. Consensus can change, but ignoring consensus can get you blocked (or desysoped).
2. If you can't find anyone who's willing to review your case, I suppose you could appeal to the community at WP:AN.

Other than that, I'm not sure what to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Though I don't have the patience to read everything in this unblock discussion, I do see a problem with Tvx1's editing at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal W.F.C.. They are tenaciously defending their own view of WP:NOTBURO and claiming the right to do something with images which doesn't follow the requirements of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I could imagine that Fastily might be persuaded to support an unblock if Tvx1 accepts a voluntary restriction that guarantees they won't try to circumvent the outcome of a WP:FFD discussion. Those more familiar with the dispute might be able to propose such a restriction. Having checked out Tvx1's proposal in points 1-4 of their comment of 11:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC), I don't see those concessions as being enough to justify unblock. It seems to me likely that the problems seen at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal W.F.C. would just go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for the comment! Yes, I would support an unblock with those terms. -FASTILY 01:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, I don't know how I could possibly appeal to the community over at WP:AN given that I can only edit my own talk page at this time?Tvx1 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, Fastily I have no intentions whatsoever to deliberately and disruptively ignore consensus or circumvent the outcome of a WP:FFD. That's what I have been trying to explain throughout the last few days. Thus I have no problems whatsoever to accept the proposed restriction. I also don't see why yet again why a claim is made that the problems at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal W.F.C. would go on for ever even though I stated here twice that I agree with Explicit's last reply to me there.Tvx1 10:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tvx1. If the four points you list at this edit are intended to be a concession on your part, can you link to an example of a dispute you have been in recently in which you would behave differently in the future, under your proposal? What is an example of something you would *not* do, or an image you would not add? EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, this is an example of an edit of mine I will not make in future. Instead I will first contact the person who closed the old discussion on the file first and if requested by them start a new FFD thread. Note that even in that case I did leave the article alone following my lone edit and actually did start a new discussion at WP:FFD which did then endorse the use of that file on that article. I can only reiterate that I have no intention to deliberately disrupt or harm Wikipedia.Tvx1 16:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So you are agreeing to refrain from any future edits like the one you just mentioned from 18 June? Will you accept that as an unblock condition that will be logged at WP:ER/UC? EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Yes I agree not to delibertaly add a file to an article in violation of a previous FFD discussion regarding it, except after achieving consensus to do so through a new discussion.Tvx1 04:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)