User talk:That guy who plays games

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't read any of the policies yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OHIO 97876 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I also forgot to welcome you, so: welcome to Wikipedia! I'll put some links below. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi OHIO 97876! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OHIO 97876 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to IOS 4 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a spelling error, sorry for the misunderstanding. OHIO 97876 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay; don't worry. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yamla. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, IPhone OS 3, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it's an obvious feature they added to the iPad! OHIO 97876 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it will be easy for you to find a reliable (WP:RS) citation (WP:CITE), as you are required to do. You won't get another warning about unsourced content. --Yamla (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is December 2023. Not June 2023. Not November 2023. It's unclear to me if you are being deliberately disruptive or just accidentally disruptive. Initially, I thought this was an accident but you continued inserting the wrong month. Either way, please stop. I have reverted your changes to iOS 17. You are welcome to reintroduce them if but only if you know the current month and year. Additionally, you seem to be indicating these pieces of information are plagiarised. If so, adding a citation needed tag to them is definitely not the correct approach. --22:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You are, by the way, welcome to remove any or all of the above, and to remove this comment. You are not currently blocked. If you were, you need to keep declined unblock requests for your currently active block, but are free to remove even those once your block expires. --Yamla (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. OHIO 97876 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unsure if you're being deliberately disruptive. What was up with this revert, and how did you even end up at that page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a misclick. OHIO 97876 (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current month

It's not November. You've been warned about this already. Please fix this edit and be more careful in the future. No more chances on this. --Yamla (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take back my warning. You initially introduced the false date prior to your previous block, so don't need another warning about it. Still, please correct your false date. --Yamla (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I copy pasted it and forgot to change it. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OHIO 97876 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an easy mistake to make. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Mario Kart, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This is unnecessary. You have been here less than a month and have been issued several warnings. Please slow down and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more direct. I'm not quite as nice as Yamla. The next unsourced edit will be an indefinite block. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OHIO 97876, the edit you made on iOS 17 appears to be unconstructive. ItsCheck (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry OHIO 97876 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OHIO 97876, no problem ItsCheck (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take a moment to checkout the guidelines? You are still adding unnecessary material. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. OHIO 97876 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I’m tired and was distracted by something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That guy who plays games (talk • contribs)

U.S. Route shield

Please don't change the headings without further discussion. The past major revisions were included as subsections of the History section, and the current design, which did a bit more than just tweak the shape used in 1961, was its own section. The 1971 revision added the wider version for three-digit numbers and also removed the option for the narrow Highway Gothic Series A typeface. That revision also removed the cutout option for the reassurance marker. It is that version of the 1961 specifications that's still used in California. Yes, I understand how some people would think it's a minor revision of the 1961 version based on the non-cutout versions alone, but there's more going on than just that.

Additionally, we had an IP editor vandalize the article to insert some commentary on the 1961 spec signs used by California. That's why I reverted back to a version of the article before that vandalism. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I understand. The reason I did that was becuse you reverted my edit that fixed a factual error that was wedged between the IP user and the admitably poor edits I made. Also I did remove the vandalism in a later edit. That guy who plays games (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 2607:fb91:1c63:4da0:9cdc:d152:f0c0:dbdb. Place any further information here. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

A few minutes after you posted this, you edit Wikipedia. I think we can consider this resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was using a VPN because my T-Mobile IP address was blocked (unrelated to anything I did), though I turned off my VPN and realized my T-Mobile address changed to an unblocked IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That guy who plays games (talk • contribs)

Welcome!

Hi That guy who plays games! I noticed your contributions to iOS 17 and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ItsCheck (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Order of the Purple Heart Bridge

I noticed that you moved Military Order of the Purple Heart Bridge to Military Order of the Purple Hearts and then to Bridge Bridge, also blanking it. I unblanked the page and made a request to have it moved back to it's original title. If you want to delete the page, you should nominate it at WP:Articles for Deletion. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to merge them because the hearts page was a stub and has been for 15 years. That guy who plays games (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, but it would have been easier to merge them the way that WP:MERGE describes instead of doing this. Now it's going to take a little bit to clean it all up. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rumson-Sea Bright drawbridge has been accepted

Rumson-Sea Bright drawbridge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 in New Jersey

That is a very bold move to merge the two articles together. There is considerable history to I-95 in the Garden State that is separate from the turnpike. That alone cautions against merging the topics together.

Now, per WP:BRD, you were Bold to attempt such a merger, but someone (me) has objected and Reverted that edit. The next step is to Discuss it. Since you're advocating merging, I would suggest you follow the process at WP:MERGEPROP if you'd still like to propose a merger of the articles. That would satisfy the discussion step of BRD. Imzadi 1979 → 05:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On A related note, should the articles about The Grace and Perman Bridges Be merged? They were both very similar and both were both demolished in 2007 That guy who plays games (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard practice to remove blocked participants? That guy who plays games (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove blocks participants from what? EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was removed form wikiproject us roads. That guy who plays games (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you are not able to edit there is no reason to stay on a WikiProject. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Also the article on I-78 got away with talking about the Holland Tunnel entrance's history prior to being replaced by it, so it must be fair to apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That guy who plays games (talk • contribs)

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cooper River Bridges (1929–2005). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Do not move pages without consulting other editors. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? I was getting rid of a redundant redirect. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the title of Arthur Ravenel Bridge which is the common name to Cooper River Bridge. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not consult other editors or suggest a move before doing it. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert it. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what to do instead if it happens again? EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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 noticeboards.
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, as you did at Delaware Route 1, you may be blocked from editing. –Fredddie ™ 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Delaware Route 1, you may be blocked from editing. –Fredddie ™ 17:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False claim. Disruptive editing is a better one to use. That guy who plays games (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cooper River Bridges (1929–2005), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Model A. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final notice

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please do not ever alter others' post, no matter what. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was writing a complete edit summary for my revert of it... well here it is anyways:

1. Please don't grammar fix other's comments (WP:TPO).
2. Please don't accidentally delete people's comments while doing grammar fixes.

– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:243A:A254:1976:1CDD (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand now. That guy who plays games (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this, where you appear to close a discussion you are directly involved in, and where you appear to falsely claim you semi-protected... something...? I'm considering blocking you, now's your chance to explain this edit in such a way as I don't need to block you. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I explained myself already. Having it open is useless. That guy who plays games (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an excuse to close a discussion you are directly involved in, nor to lie about the reason for the close. I have enacted a block. --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? How did I lie? Dennis Brown said I didn't need the explain further. That guy who plays games (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm - I see TGWPG tried to close and "semi-protect" the discussion. You don't understand how a lot of things work here, so what looks like a "lie" was actually (for lack of a better word) "incompetence". I was on the fence, and was willing to just monitor, with my finger on the block button, but admins are always free to take more decisive action, and after the odd close (and other comments elsewhere), you kind of shot yourself in the foot. You don't close a discussion you opened, you can't assume that because one admin is willing to monitor, that another admin won't block (or the community itself). It's late night here, so I will leave this to others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence or outright lies, either way this user's edits are significantly problematic. I was considering between an indefinite block and a shorter block and decided on the latter. Nothing I've seen since the block convinces me their edits would be significantly better if unblocked, but any admin is free to lift or shorten the block if they are convinced. --Yamla (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More problematic than a vandal or spammer? I think not. That guy who plays games (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:JAGUAR)

A user trying to cover their tracks and insists that they are in the 'right' even after being blocked is far more problematic than a few flippers and floppers looking for a laugh, who are relatively easy to clean up and usually don't return (bar sockpuppet users). Incompetence and lies can be tedious to clean up after, especially when the user outright refuses that they have done any wrongdoing. I strongly advise you cut the talk back and acknowledge you have, at least in the eyes of others, made errors, for your own sake. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can just say incompetence. I’m not denying I’m not in the wrong(becuse I am).

That guy who plays games (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

':::::What IP address did you edit with as you said on your user page? EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple, I forgot which ones. I’m forced to physically move locations. I don’t sock, so if that’s what your trying to catch me for than your wasting your time. That guy who plays games (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand my edits were trivial, poor, and disruptive. to prevent this, I will attempt to suggest potentially controversial edits and page moves onto the talk page beforehand, as well as think out my edits better in the future to avoid causing other editors unnecessary headaches. That guy who plays games (talk)

Decline reason:

You were blocked once before for unsourced additions despite multiple notifications asking you not to do that and despite that you seem to be finding new ways to cause disruption. Closing a complaint against yourself at WP:ANI with an absurd statement is not something that falls under minor disruption. You need to read through policies and guidelines and see how best you can adapt to the workings of the project without causing additional disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 16:12, 10 March 2024 (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.

Do not modify (or remove) declined unblock requests for your currently-active block. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did that to get attention so I could be unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That guy who plays games (talk • contribs)

That argues very strongly in favour of extending your block indefinitely. You seem to be going out of your way to demonstrate your disruptive intentions here. --Yamla (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add it back, but it edit conflicted. That guy who plays games (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, can you sockstrike discovered sockpuppet EmperorOfTheUS's ANI request please? That guy who plays games (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 2

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).

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Past actions don't predict the future.That guy who plays games (talk)

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (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.

Pull garbage like this again and I'm extending your block indefinitely and revoking talk page access. I no longer have any doubt. You aren't incompetent, you are deliberately maliciously disruptive. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite duration block sounds reasonable given all the facts.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree. This has gone from bad to worse in the past day. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a accident. That guy who plays games (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is taking time to edit/move a page and intentionally pressing the publish button an accident? EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Want talking about that. That guy who plays games (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What were you talking about? What is an accident? EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changing of USD to USb. i was adding a unblock request and they added a comment and i misclicked. That guy who plays games (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Indef: I think the user lacks the maturity needed to work on Wikipedia. I sense a great desire to 'get off the hook by any means necessary', which isn't a healthy outlook for him if he is unblocked. I would suggest a block now and give him a few years of growing up, since he seems to be a youthful user based off his tone and actions. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll change. Just give me a chance. That guy who plays games (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my look. I've learned my lesson and am willing to move on form this. That guy who plays games (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you frustrating us on purpose? EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. That guy who plays games (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am trying to help you here, you should stop while you are ahead and stop making a worse case for yourself. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a thought out unblock request. If someone reads it, acceptation or not, I will stop requesting them. That guy who plays games (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way i do think i am in the wrong. All just trying to have my unblock request get accepted. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a better approach than what you are doing. Yes, I think you are in the wrong. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and i admitted that. I just want to improve. Okay? My past behavior wasn't good and I know that now. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can you prove that you will not do it again, you are the same person as you were a week ago. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll slow down and put more thought into my edits. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of the US is nobody and has been blocked for socking. Don't pay any attention to them. Secretlondon (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that hours ago. That guy who plays games (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove their report of me then? That guy who plays games (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE does exist, although I will let someone else use it. I will admit, I got bad vibes off him blatantly violating AGF. I will highlight that me and Yamla don't think your a bad-intentioned user, just one that needs a helping hand, or maybe a bit of time. People like the sockpuppeter being incivil off the back of others are parasites that I like to keep a long distance from. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean some of my moves and edits weren't contributive, but I also didn't move popular /relevant pages. That guy who plays games (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the sock owner. That guy who plays games (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So can you first do it to my talk page? That guy who plays games (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a bad intention in mind. I remember when I got blocked initially, I bound myself to consensus. I read through the discussion about it, took it on board, and made personal, non-forced changes to my outlook on participating on Wikipedia. However, if you are only changing behaviour because you got blocked for it and are now trying to find an escape route for you to get past this block, to me it seems only a matter of time before you hit a roadside IED and have your passion for this website, if you have any, become ashes. I stand by my support for an indef, and this can be revisited in a year or two. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I’m doing it to be a better contributor. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can possibly say to fix this and get unblocked this year. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go I’ve me a chance. I want to get the point. That guy who plays games (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a chance in two years. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That guy who plays games (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand or have any questions? EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (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).

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know I was AFD for moving Arthur Ravenel to a different location, and from now on I'll get community conscious before doing so. I tried doing 5hat to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, but nobody ever commented, so that's why i started doing that. In the long term i shount though, and I'll stop doing this. From now on, if i want to move or merge articles , I will tell other editors per Wikipedia's Guidelines. Additionally, I will not edit what other users write on talk pages per the talk page guidelines or assume things abruptly. I do realize that most of the edits i made were problematic, and I do truly want to improve as an editor and follow Wikipedia's guidelines, I just don't know how and thought i'd be simpler than it turned out to be. That guy who plays games (talk)

Decline reason:

There's no easy to say this, but this unblock request does not really allay suspicions of incompetence. Maybe you should spend the week reading Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, see if maybe you can find a mentor (if we're still doing that), and practice your English writing skills. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2024 (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.

Comment I was surprised to see that this block only lasts a week and is not indefinite given the level of impatience other editors have with your contributions to the project. So, I echo NinjaRobotPirate's advice to read up on policy during your week off from editing. But I have one more thing I'll add: When this block is over, stay away from noticeboards and commenting upon the actions of other editors. You have made many mistakes yourself in your brief time here as an editor and you are not in a position to judge editing behavior of other editors and passing judgment on them. Instead work on improving articles, you'll get more respect from your fellow editors if you concentrate on improving content, eliciting discussion with other editors, rather than hanging out on noticeboards. Just a piece of unasked-for advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've read all of the guidelines and am ready to contribute helpfully. I know my edits were bad and I'll revert/improve them in the future. That guy who plays games (talk)

Decline reason:

This request does not address any of the suggestions given in the last two declines. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 13 March 2024 (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.

These sub-par unblock requests are counting against you, and I think you should strongly consider waiting out the rest of the block without another one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what am I supposed to say? I explained what I'd do if you unblocked me, and if I don't change you ban me no questions asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That guy who plays games (talk • contribs)

US 51 in Illinois

Why did you do this? Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To create a redirect. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how you create a redirect. Instead, that's how you make a mess of others' watchlists and make mistakes that lose articles under bad titles. Please stop this disruptive behavior. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there toll roads without a redirect that allows such, which is something they should've had from the start. Also i'm not willing to try to create a redirect because it will take forever. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should not have been created unless you have proof that the roads were ever signed in that fashion. Moving articles all around repeatedly is very disruptive. Do not do that again. If you must create a redirect, do it the correct way. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? That guy who plays games (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDIRECT and WP:How to make a redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of U.S. Route 3 Toll (Rhode Island)

A tag has been placed on U.S. Route 3 Toll (Rhode Island) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Imzadi 1979 → 22:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got the road confused with US 6. Sorry. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why your recent actions are especially disruptive. Imzadi 1979 → 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was copy editing. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring with bots

Please don't edit war with bots as you've been doing at List of toll roads in the United States. The bot will just keep reverting you. You can't use a non-free file without a proper non-free use rationale for that page. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do? That guy who plays games (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also my pov writing wasn’t pov writing, it was removing an inherent bias from an article. That guy who plays games (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you listen? Please? That guy who plays games (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bbb23, why did you block me without giving me a say? My edit on the Woodrow Wilson bridge was from reading a Washington post article from 1995 debunking this claim, on which it said that the 1980s redecking in fact worsened the bridges condition and caused the need for a replacement. Also my edit of that article on Nazism was removing a bias, sure they were the majority, but completely ignoring the major minority is biased in this specific situation. Who's the one jumping to conclusions now?That guy who plays games (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request, you are addressing BBb23. Unblock requests are for asking for a third party review. From what I see anyway, though, I agree with Dennis below that the block should remain in place. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2024 (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 been following this case for a while (including at the original ANI report), and while I could review, I will pass this time, to let someone else view the situation. What we have here is a serious WP:CIR case, someone who consistently makes errors in judgement for whatever reason, to the point that they are clearly a net-negative to the encyclopedia. It takes more man hours to police and fix their edits than the value of the few good edits. Because of this, I would strongly recommend leaving the block in place. Even with good intentions, this editor simply doesn't have the ability to collaborate in a way that benefits the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please give me a second chance. Looking back on it, my edits were disruptive and I want to correct what I did wrong. I'll be more collaborative in the future, I won't shove POV into articles, and i'll cite sources better. I'm extremely sorry for the disruption I caused. That guy who plays games (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have already been given a second chance. The number of chances editors have extended to you numbers in the dozens. Despite all the warnings and advice above, you have continued to edit disruptively. This block is necessary to prevent ongoing harm to the project. I do not see any succesful unblock request being likely in the next few months, and I encourage you to take a long break. Maybe you'll come back with a clearer description of what you've done wrong and some plan for how you'll restrict your edits to ones within your sphere of competence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 26 March 2024 (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.

Unblock request

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).

That guy who plays games (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've narrowed my scope to be of things i'm competent at. I am going to stop moving articles, use the edit summaries and talk pages more often, and i'll stop assuming things. That guy who plays games (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've decided to go ahead and review this one, after watching the entire process take place. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to fully understand why you are blocked, and that means that future disruption is almost guaranteed, in spite of your good intentions. You were advised to walk away for a few months (good advice) but didn't take it seriously. At this point, I feel like the likelihood of an unblock is virtually zero due to WP:CIR reasons, so I am declining, and removing talk page access. Any other appeals will need to be via UTRS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:35, 30 March 2024 (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 don't think this user truly understands the issues with there editing, given there various 'second chances' that went acknowledged but then ignored. If this user does not take a long, several months break from Wikipedia before making another unblock request, I would be inclined to support removal of talk page access. Unfortunate, but the rope almost out, if not already. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/That guy who plays games. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

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 submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

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.

Izno (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]