User talk:Lachlb

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lachlb! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Lachlb/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Lachlb/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lachlb! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding scrutiny

I don't know if you were aware but pretending to be someone else, like your activities at Template talk:Infobox time zone UTC, can result in editing sanctions. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. "Consensus" does not mean "what I want". It means an agreement that multiple users have come to, based on reasoned argument. I see little evidence of that happening at Template talk:Infobox time zone UTC. (For what it's worth, I plan to give my opinions [on that talk page] about what changes to the template are needed and what changes are not needed — I just can't do it at this particular moment.) - dcljr (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Kudpung

Hello, Lachlb. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll.
Message added 20:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Hi Lachlb. Please do not continue to delete Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll#Lachlb: June 8, 2019, it will be archived by a bot in due course. Ping me, if there's anything I can help you with. Best, Sam Sailor 11:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of UTC/cities

Hi, there is no consensus to make any changes to the list of cities. Why do you feel you need to do that? The long-standing position is as the agreed text, no more than 1 per country per time zone. I’m happy to consider alternative approaches based on what other sources might be using (feel free to suggest some at talk), although I’m not convinced we need a list of 'principal cities’ at the top of each time zone anyway. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced stubs

Please do not create unsourced stubs in mainspace, I've moved them back to draft. Please also find consensus for creating these at it seems wildly unnecessary to have a stub for every possible time/time zone of this nature. Praxidicae (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit without explanation

Hello, I will tell you only once to refrain from reverting an edit without first contacting the editor and/or providing a legitimate reason as to why, as you did to my edit on the Golden hamster article. I will not say it again. 86.130.4.25 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

86.130.4.25, since I just reverted you again - the reversion was entirely justified because you did not provide a source. Any addition of material that is unsourced may be reverted, and "contacting the editor" is not required. Please lay off the grandstanding and instead add references (and because we are so nice here, we will say this again, at least a few more times, before further developments.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Wikipedia:Summer time in Europe

What is going on here? Do you need an admin to fix this? -- œ^™ 17:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok should be all back to normal now. What did you want to do with Help:Daylight saving time in Europe and Book:Summer time in Europe? Did you want to keep these two pages? -- œ^™ 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why I should be unblocked

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason why I should be unblocked because I accidentally made mistakes when editing and I promise not make them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlb (talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You used multiple accounts to give a false impression of having the support of multiple people. That's not a "mistake when editing" nor an accident. Huon (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2019 (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've formatted the unblock template for you. For the record, accidentally creating 4 accounts and trying to create at least 2 more isn't an accident. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why I was blocked

What got me blocked in the first place is because I understand creating more than one account is not an accident and I abused multiple accounts and make unconstructive edits on articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlb (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25759 was submitted on Jun 30, 2019 07:50:12. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25762 was submitted on Jun 30, 2019 11:11:00. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lachlb, your being blocked from UTRS for six months (the standard offer period) does not mean you can send me or any other user e-mail about your block. If you send me another or if I hear that you have sent e-mail to other editors, I will disable your e-mail access. I realize you cannot respond to this but I'm sure you will read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Lachlb, this is not helping your case at all. I highly recommend you stop editing Wikipedia for a while (six months, apparently), and instead spend time reading Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Banning policy. - dcljr (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom block

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked you should review the guide to appealing blocks then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of ArbCom. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw ^talk 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Lachlb/sandbox

Hello, Lachlb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.