User talk:TheLordOfMiners8

February 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Al-Azhar University has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Al-Azhar University was changed by TheLordOfMiners8 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.963342 on 2017-02-10T00:31:50+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2019

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Canterbury Tail talk 01:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. David Biddulph (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

TheLordOfMiners8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for my disruptive editing, I was just trying to be a bit comedic. Please unban me I won't be disruptive againTheLordOfMiners8 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No point in shortening a 24-hour block. Just wait it out. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:04, 12 January 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.

February 2019

Hello, I'm PackMecEng. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Ralph Northam, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Ralph Northam, especially if it involves living persons. See WP:RACIST wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ralph Northam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:Jusdafax, you may be blocked from editing. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Gloria Borger. Serols (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2019 (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).

TheLordOfMiners8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How was that vandalism?! I was adding what these people are referred to often by people TheLordOfMiners8 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(edit conflict) Great. Then you'll have no problem finding a reliable citation to prove that. Do so. Please note that I strongly considered extending your block, so think carefully. Make sure you've read WP:RS and WP:CITE. We are getting tired of your disruptive editing which has been going on for months now. I'm really surprised you got away with only a two week block. Yamla (talk) 18:28, 5 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.

Do you have sources to verify these two people are referred to the nicknames you’ve attributed to them? N.J.A. | talk 18:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do: https://sputniknews.com/viral/201906041075615352-cnn-journalist-pewdiepie-joke/

If that's the best you can do, I think I'll extend your block indefinitely. I was pretty clear. WP:RS. Additionally, that only talks about Gloria Borger, not Poppy Harlow. You need to provide one or more reliable citations, citations that meet WP:RS and WP:CITE, for both people. --Yamla (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you obviously weren't clear cause I didn't understand you, here is a second link https://pewdiepie.fandom.com/wiki/Poppy_Harlow their unban me — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLordOfMiners8 (talk • contribs)

I pointed you to WP:RS. That you can claim https://pewdiepie.fandom.com/wiki/Poppy_Harlow meets the criteria demonstrates you are either trolling or lack sufficient competence to edit here. Either way, I've extended your block indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to speak to another adminstratour your quite sassy and unprofessional and you are very harsh and I believe it is unethical of you to do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLordOfMiners8 (talk • contribs)

WP:GAB explains how you can write an unblock request. A different administrator will review any request you make. --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin here. I support amending this to an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. This is based on the edits today, the “sources” given and also a sampling of edits generally and previous blocks. Either you’re trolling, continually attempting and failing to be funny or whatever and it’s just not what Wikipedia is here for as it is disruptive. N.J.A. | talk 19:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok alright I'm sorry it was not my intention to vandalise or give unreliable sources please bring back the ban to 2 weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLordOfMiners8 (talk • contribs)

No. I've explained how you can contest this block. Note that the block was endorsed by another admin. --Yamla (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2019 (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).

TheLordOfMiners8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for vandalising the 2 articles by not citing my sources, it was not my intention to vandalise these articles and I did not realize I had to cite them and I did not know that my sources were unreliable, please bring back the ban to 2 weeks as I think indefintly is a bit excessive and I have contributed good to wikipedia/wikicommons such as my presto card updated picture

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:49, 6 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.

For the next appeal reviewer: The (very) small collection of good faith edits, like the aforementioned Presto card, was the reason I didn't move immediately to indef and tried to be lenient with 2 weeks. I don't oppose the indef though, there's quite a lot of NOTHERE/IDONTGETIT behavior. User needs to demonstrate they have an understanding of WP:RS at the very least, and that's not shown yet. I'd like them to explain why they thought blanking another user's page was appropriate too. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]