This is an archive of past discussions with User:CentralTime301. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Besides that, I have a request to Mvcg66b3r: restore his version of November 20, 2019 because a user has copyediting and removing sourced info from WNGH-TV; restore it here. I cannot undo it to the November 20 version because I am blocked. CentralTime301(Talk, Contributions)17:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Not really. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles at the direction/request of blocked editors. That said, if you see obvious vandalism and point it out, that would help convince us that you understand the vandalism guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
That said, the diff you link appears to fix the problem in the article. Please provide a diff if somebody changed that (back) later. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
C.Fred, I'm afraid this response will only encourage CentralTime301 to misuse this talk page to make proxy edit requests which will likely lead to their talk page access being revoked. CentralTime301 has not shown the competency or nuance required to make such requests and they really should be restricted to using this page for WP:GAB-compliant appeals only. The best way to demonstrate that they understand the vandalism guidelines would be to make themselves useful on another project, then to return here after some time to request an unblock with pointers to the helpful edits they've made elsewhere.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
And to that end, I'm going to say that any conversation on this page needs to be about your conduct and not attempts to get live edits made. Beyond that, I would say to spend the next few months active on another project and come back then to make an unblock request with pointers to the helpful edits elsewhere or with a second chance request. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
One last olive branch: would you like to withdraw that unblock request you made, rather than have me reject it? —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I know we often disagree about whether a blocked user should be given another chance, but in this case, your comments, in my view, are far too encouraging. I think Beeblebrox was lenient when he blocked the user for a year rather than indefinitely. The burden should be on CT to demonstrate sufficient competence and judgment to edit Wikipedia. Nonetheless, the purpose of Beeblebrox's one-year block was for CT not to request an unblock now or a few months from now but to wait the year in the hope that increased maturity would enable CT to edit constructively. I'm tempted to revoke TPA if CT's absurd comments (I mean, really, look at the unblock request) continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: My initial hope was that CT could demonstrate competence through such requests and pointing things out. However, between the follow-on conversation and the unblock request, I don't think that's going to be possible. Hence why I've backed off and said that CT really needs to wait, learn, and mature for a while (six months is the standard) before making any further attempts to get unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
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).
Here are my four reasons why: 1. I assume good faith and revert vandalism. 2. I never did something wrong to get blocked and as such, never always did vandalize Wikipedia. 3. I think the unblock request is gonna be between denied and approved, but will or not be likely denied. And 4. I can't handle not even one day or a week or a year of being blocked by Beeblebrox. CentralTime301(Talk, Contributions)17:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's unclear to me if this is a serious unblock request. I'm going to politely assume it isn't serious, and therefore decline procedurally. Just in case it was serious, there was never any chance of a request like this being granted. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. You'll want to address the points raised by other editors about your behaviour. Yamla (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
We don't block IPs indefinitely, but I have blocked them. I've also reprotected this page, this time for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: I have one huge reason why I was blocked because of you. It is because I wasn't responding to any messages from multiple users and that you said there were multiple issues because of me. Those users have tried to guide me but failed anyway because it hasn't helped really much. The other is being that my edits need a closer review on WP:ANI; I thought there was gonna be a consequence for me because of this, and I had a 1 year block, which was the consequence in November 21. Because of this, I unfortunately did not even understood how to even use my talk page despite some other users trying to explain it to me, and which it was not a serious issue. I was making good edits such as good faith edits but the error pattern rate is really simply off the charts! I am really sorry for this and will not do it again.
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).
I have read the entire WP:GAB essay. And there are a few reasons why for this unblock: # I will not do things I did before I was blocked. # I will not do disruptive vandalism or WP:DE edits. # I will do productive, WP:AGF style contributions. # I will stop using Twinkle's templates for now (or else they may leave me a message on my talk page). And #: I will not even screw up or anything in Wikipedia. Rest of notes: I have read WP:GAB and Wikipedia's WP:POLICY essay article. I, from now, will follow the guidelines and not do anything bad or wrong and may or may not revert vandalism. Special Note: I believe this unblock request may or might be between approved/accepted–denied/declined. CentralTime301(Talk, Contributions)16:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Beeblebrox was very specific as to why they chose a one year block, specifically "You are making some good edits but the error rate is simply unacceptably high. As a self-identified younger user this block is done in the hope that in the year of this block you may mature some and be more able to follow Wikipedia policies and practices properly once it has expired". Normally I would suggest that you edit other Wikimedia projects to demonstrate that you can contribute collaboratively and comptently, however you have recently managed to get yourself blocked on simple.wiki and have had suspected socks blocked on commons. You really need to take the enforced break that Beeblebrox provided through this block to gain the maturity needed to edit here. Your unblock messages and the discussion below do not provide any reassurance that you're ready to return to editing at this time.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
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 you're getting this. You can't just say "I won't be disruptive", or "I won't do anything wrong" - we're all human, we all make mistakes, but you need to show you have learned from the mistakes that lead to your block. It's not just about admitting you were a disruptive editor (Which I don't see you doing here) - it's about demonstrating you understand what exactly was disruptive about your behaviour prior, and how you intend to do better. Right now you're pretty much just saying "unblock me, please", with no rationale - that's not enough. -- a they/them | argue | contribs11:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have to say, with responses like this I cannot see your block being rescinded any time soon. It's really obvious that you do not understand what the problem is, or why it's a problem. Multiple editors have tried to explain this to you, at this point. -- a they/them | argue | contribs13:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we're reading different messages, because I cannot see anything in your unblock request which tells me you understand the impact that your behaviour had on other editors. You're wasting a lot of editors' time, energy, and good faith, here. -- a they/them | argue | contribs14:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Alfie that there needs to be demonstration that you understand what was disruptive. One way to show this is to describe a specific edit you would make if unblocked: what article would you change, what text would you change, what would you change it to, and what reliable sources would you cite? This gives us something concrete we can look at, instead of vague promises to do better. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If you'd be reverting vandalism but not leaving warning templates, that shows that you don't really understand what vandalism is or how it's problematic for Wikipedia. Based on that answer, you are not ready to be unblocked at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
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).
I have read the entire WP:GAB essay. And there are a few reasons why for this unblock: # I will not do things I did before I was blocked. # I will not do disruptive vandalism or WP:DE edits. # I will do productive, WP:AGF style contributions. # I will stop using Twinkle's templates for now (or else they may leave me a message on my talk page). And #: I will not even screw up or anything in Wikipedia. Rest of notes: I have read WP:GAB and Wikipedia's WP:POLICY essay article. I, from now, will follow the guidelines and not do anything bad or wrong and may or may not revert vandalism. Special Note: I believe this unblock request may or might be between approved/accepted–denied/declined. CentralTime301(Talk, Contributions)16:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Beeblebrox was very specific as to why they chose a one year block, specifically "You are making some good edits but the error rate is simply unacceptably high. As a self-identified younger user this block is done in the hope that in the year of this block you may mature some and be more able to follow Wikipedia policies and practices properly once it has expired". Normally I would suggest that you edit other Wikimedia projects to demonstrate that you can contribute collaboratively and comptently, however you have recently managed to get yourself blocked on simple.wiki and have had suspected socks blocked on commons. You really need to take the enforced break that Beeblebrox provided through this block to gain the maturity needed to edit here. Your unblock messages and the discussion below do not provide any reassurance that you're ready to return to editing at this time.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
The bot then archived & removed this most recent declined unblock request too. I have restored it, and changed the archive parameter to stop it doing so again until after the block has expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you're getting this. You can't just say "I won't be disruptive", or "I won't do anything wrong" - we're all human, we all make mistakes, but you need to show you have learned from the mistakes that lead to your block. It's not just about admitting you were a disruptive editor (Which I don't see you doing here) - it's about demonstrating you understand what exactly was disruptive about your behaviour prior, and how you intend to do better. Right now you're pretty much just saying "unblock me, please", with no rationale - that's not enough. -- a they/them | argue | contribs11:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have to say, with responses like this I cannot see your block being rescinded any time soon. It's really obvious that you do not understand what the problem is, or why it's a problem. Multiple editors have tried to explain this to you, at this point. -- a they/them | argue | contribs13:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we're reading different messages, because I cannot see anything in your unblock request which tells me you understand the impact that your behaviour had on other editors. You're wasting a lot of editors' time, energy, and good faith, here. -- a they/them | argue | contribs14:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Alfie that there needs to be demonstration that you understand what was disruptive. One way to show this is to describe a specific edit you would make if unblocked: what article would you change, what text would you change, what would you change it to, and what reliable sources would you cite? This gives us something concrete we can look at, instead of vague promises to do better. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If you'd be reverting vandalism but not leaving warning templates, that shows that you don't really understand what vandalism is or how it's problematic for Wikipedia. Based on that answer, you are not ready to be unblocked at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
