User talk:AnimationWhiz133

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:20, 6 March 2013 (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).

AnimationWhiz133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that disruptive editing was done on this account and would not allow my editing become disruptive again now that i understand the rules of wikipedia. i understand i shouldnt edit so much and should listen to other peoples ideas. it would be nice to have a clean start. However i dont really want to edit on wikipedia again. if i decided not to edit again i would wish that my page were simply deleted. The user that blocked this account has also been inactive for some time and had their editing privileges removed. if my page is deleted, and any others i have created deleted as well, i dont intend to come back to edit on wikipedia, and now that i understand the sock puppetry rules i would not attempt what i now understand are disruptive edits on different accounts.

Decline reason:

User talk pages are not deleted, but you can blank just about everything other than declined unblock requests if you wish. I see you have also created several articles, but as other people have since worked on them, they will not be deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2018 (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).

AnimationWhiz133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i do not necessarily want the user talk page deleted. i also do not need the articles i created to be deleted, i would want them to stay. i simply want to be able to change my username and edit constructively DynamicDragon 20:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (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).

AnimationWhiz133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Posting my first appeal again as Yamla (talk) did not read it. I said: I understand that disruptive editing was done on this account and would not allow my editing become disruptive again now that i understand the rules of wikipedia. i understand i shouldnt edit so much and should listen to other peoples ideas. it would be nice to have a clean start. The user that blocked this account has also been inactive for some time and had their editing privileges removed. now that i understand the sock puppetry rules i would not attempt what i now understand are disruptive edits on different accounts. DynamicDragon 21:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unpersuasive. The socks I checked were single-mindedly focused on the same topic which repeatedly has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. I don't see that addressed, nor any suggestions on how future conduct would differ from past conduct beyond vague generalities ("editing so much" wasn't one of the problems that led to the block). Huon (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2018 (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.

Reposting a declined request for unblock can result in a loss of access to this page. The blocking admin being inactive does not affect the circumstances surrounding your block in any way. Being blocked 3 times for sockpuppetry is a high hurdle to overcome. Have you been active on any other WMF wikis over the last few months that you could point me towards? SQL ^{Query me!} 23:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are WMF wikis? i just did not understand how wikipedia worked before, i assure you i will do my upmost not to repeat previous mistakes. the issues that led being blocking those 3 times will not occur again. i understand now what i was doing wrong, im just asking to be allowed another chance to be constructive DynamicDragon 19:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"WMF wikis" are essentially any wiki under the Wikimedia Foundation's umbrella, of which Wikipedia (and its myriad language-editions) is one. Others are Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Commons, among others. Each language edition is its own separate wiki and project (i.e. the German Wikipedia is a separate thing from the English Wikipedia). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]