Your recent editing history at River Valley High School, Singapore 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Longhair\talk05:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome!
Hello, Charliestalnaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Thank you for your welcome. Although I think some are heavy handed in blanking out a small section on the killing at a high school, I will let it go for now and see how things play out in real life. Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, Charlie
Please exercise some common sense--the Axe brand ad & RVHS' "mental health" award are obviously irrelevant news. It almost makes me wonder if you are trolling Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on 2021 Phuket tourist murder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 03:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An article you recently created, Zara Rutherford, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article you created on Zara Rutherford that is on the main page today is truly an inspiration! What an amazing young woman and a role model for bravery and endurance! Thank you for your contributions. Netherzone (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This shows how broken the Wikipedia system is. The Zara Rutherford article was originally deleted but I risked being blocked by creating it. I didn't know that it had been deleted until I started the article. Wikipedia is usually nice but it is possible for a power hungry adminstrator to block. I wouldn't be surprised if it caused depression and even suicide. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to hear you feel that way; personally I think Wikipedia works fairly well. It's not perfect, but what is? It's been my observation over the years that 95% of all wikipedian editors and admins alike are trying to do what is right for the encyclopedia and the readership. I find that I am happiest here when I don't take anything personally, and when something frustrates me, I edit in an uncontroversial area interest, usually having to do with nature. Editing the 'pedia is my hobby, and if and whenever it starts feeling like a job instead of a hobby I take a break. It's a great hobby, it keeps me researching, learning, tweaking my writing skills and building more neuro-connections! I hope that the subjects of BLPs also don't take it too seriously if an article on them is deleted or edited in a way that is not to their liking; a personal website can be just as effective (or more effective) than a WP article. It was sad to read your last sentence, and I truly hope you are not speaking of yourself. If you you or someone you know on wikipedia is feeling depressed or suicidal, please reach out to WP:SAFETY. There are some really great folks here that could help. Hope that 2022 is a good year for you and yours. Best regards, and happy editing, Netherzone (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: See the newly added "Executive Summary" to the unblock request. The checkuser is recommending unblock. The checkuser has data unavailable to the blocking admin. With this new recommendation, the blocking admin now has diminished standing and reason to block. The blocking admin is refusing to comply. Added to the fundamental Wikipedia concept of WP:AGF, unblock is warranted. Thank you for your consideration. Charliestalnaker (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|B203GTB}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
I query the correctness of the name of the 9th Viscount Falmouth's heir. The name of his first son is Evelyn Arthur Hugh Boscawen (correct names italicised). George is a Christian name of the youngest male sibling, Vere George Boscawen.Cloptonson (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please no joke edits?
Look, we all know about the wonderful adventures of the most glorious Supreme Leader, but that was entirely unwarranted and unnecessary. I'm personally of the opinion that name listings like that are best avoided entirely (and most of the time, international leaders don't say much pertinent except a rather expected and unsurprising expression of condolences), but if you must, then it would be far more convincing if you didn't go so ridiculously over the top? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In 1976, Air France plane that was hijacked to Uganda. President Amin went to the airport to talk with the passengers. One asked him a question, addressing him as "Field Marshal President Amin". Amin went into a rage yelling "THAT IS NOT MY NAME!" "My name, for short, is His Excellency President Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor President Idi Amin Dada!!!". Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkley Sin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Nicole Sauvain-Weisskopf until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I have reviewed the edit and find it was constructive. I realize there can be differing opinions but to characterize it has not constructive is highly inflammatory, uncivil, and false. Please do not use such strong language. Do not use a template without first reviewing the language. Thank you. Charliestalnaker (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the sources and amended the article. Do not place citation required tags on text that is already cited. If you have a dispute with what the sources say, bring the issue to the talk page, with your references. Hawkeye7(discuss)08:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Jason Moore (journalist), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. LizRead!Talk!03:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Executive Summary Version: The checkuser recommends unblock to the blocking admin. See [1]
I first would like to apologize to the entire Wikipedia community for my actions. I intentionally waited over 10 days (almost 12 days) to request unblock because I wanted to be punished by being blocked for at least two weeks as a sign of humility and humbleness. Secondly, if this request is refused, the block will be a defacto lifetime ban, which I request not happen. Thirdly, I request immediate unblock of user CandyStalnak, who is my daughter and a teen. She should not be punished for the actions of her father. I would also like to add that I have edited in good faith as evidence by hundreds of constructive edits AND editing under a real name, not hiding under an anonymous username.
I would like to point out that the checkuser did write that my daughter and I have no editing overlap, share a similar name, and are likely to be family members. That is evidence enough to unblock my daughter.
However, I would like to state that the checkuser is partly wrong because I have talked candidly with my daughter and she insists that she did not engage in sockpuppetry. I also checked the browsing history of the family computer and see that the other accused sockpuppets did NOT use the family computer. Perhaps the checkuser only meant that my daughter and I were using the family computer, which is true.
A likely explanation is that the other sockpuppets are not sockpuppets but meatpuppets. I did tell some work colleagues about Wikipedia and promoting Wikipedia to colleagues, saying how interesting it was so it is likely that they used a work computer. There was NEVER any coordinated editing, which is what sock/meatpuppetry is. Note that my family computer and the computers at work are in different cities of the same region. However, I am willing to be punished for their actions, but not a lifetime defacto ban, which would be unfair, punishment (blocking is supposed to prevent damage to Wikipedia but not be punishment See WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE)
Lastly, I ask that you do not be cruel and refuse unblock. *****I direct your attention to the many hundreds of good edits, including 2 DYK features on the Wikipedia home page as well as 2 ITN recognitions on my talk page. I, again, also request that you do not wrongly punish my daughter, who is at an impressionable age, still eager to help Wikipedia and also increasing the number of women in Wikipedia, which is disappointingly low. She is very upset at being punished by the block on her. Again, sorry and thank you. Charliestalnaker (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your unblock request needs some clarification. You say that you "would like to apologize to the entire Wikipedia community for [your] actions", that you "wanted to be punished by being blocked for at least two weeks", and that your daughter "should not be punished for the actions of her father". Having carefully read and re-read your unblock request, I can't see what you are referring to. What would you like to apologise for? What have you done for which you think you should be punished? What are the actions of Candy's father for which she shouldn't be punished? JBW (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JBW:. Thank you so much for your reply. First, I will answer the specific questions then I will make additional comments.
Q. What would you like to apologise for?
A. I would like to apologise for unwittingly causing trouble to at least one Wikipedia administrator. Jason Moore is a Wikipedia editor who has been featured in the news for at least 10 years, mainly for his prolific Wikipedia writing. I admit that this is a shaky basis for a Wikipedia article despite meeting some criteria, such as reliable source coverage. The wiser thing is to let it go. Do not make trouble by writing an article on it. This is what started it. Someone might have not liked it and wanted to punish me. They did not challenge the way I edited or challenged specific examples of disruption but instead attacked using the checkuser and using that as a basis to ban me by indefinite blockade. Rather than fight, I apologise for not living up to the expectations of all Wikipedians. Just edit and not edit anything that might cause trouble.
Q. What have you done for which you think should be punished?
A. I caused trouble by making someone dislike me. If I didn't cause trouble by writing an article on Jason Moore, everything would have been fine. I also cause trouble by talking about Wikipedia with people at work, getting some of them interested. If I talked with them, I should have avoided mentioning specific examples and articles. However, the nexus between their edits and mine are very fleeting and certainly not coordinated or prolonged.
Q. What are the actions of Candy's father for which she shouldn't be punished.
A. Candy is Wikipedia's future. She is a young teen who reads Wikipedia and even edited it a little. I have no interest at all to what she edits but it's nice that she's doing something in a man's world. As for my actions, they are described in the first two answers.
Prior to this episode in Wikipedia, my understanding of disruption in Wikipedia included having friends edit or editing with multiple accounts yourself to try to show a false consensus in article writing. This never happened. Nothing coordinated ever happened. Nobody has shown that this happened because it didn't.
After this episode, I have a new understanding of Wikipedia. Do not try to cause trouble. Do not write anything controversial. Even creating a light hearted article on a man featured in the news quite a few times over 10 years may cause trouble so don't do it. I also agree to bow my head and take responsibility for any accusation against me. I will not fight it. I confess to everything and promise to avoid any possibility of conflict. This may sound weak but it is what I teach my daughter; "do not fight or argue with others in public, even in a line (queue) at McDonald's, because they may take out a knife and stab you, even if you are technically right". Charliestalnaker (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked those questions above for the following reason. Looking at editing history I couldn't see enough evidence to be sure that the sockpuppetry charge was justified. However, the things you said in your unblock request didn't make any sense if it wasn't, so I decided to give you a chance to explain, in the hope you could gi e an explanation which would clear things up, and make it possible to believe your account. Unfortunately, what you have said has not entirely cleared things up, but in some ways has added further confusion. Alas, I am unlikely to be able to follow this up soon, if at all, because of events which are about to take place and which are likely to keep me away from Wikipedia. The best I can offer is that I hope
some administrator without such restraints will deal with your request soon, so that you aren't left waiting. If that doesn't happen, I may possibly be able eventually to come back and deal with it. JBW (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW:. If you want my opinion, deep down, the sockpuppetry charge was not justified and a possible abuse of power. An alternative explanation is that it was an unwitting knee jerk behavior in Wikipedia of accusing someone of sockpuppetry if you don't like them. On the other hand, I am well aware that expressing such opinion is a death sentence in Wikipedia. One must bow their head in sorrow and in confession and admit to everything.
Therefore, I am willing to admit to everything, any and all accusations. I do that for my daughter so that she is not punished. I also do that because I understand another tenant of Wikipedia, just be an editor, do not edit anything controversial, and do not cross any administrator. Not all administrators are like that but if you do come across one like that, the chances of getting a block reversed is very slim. Note that I normally would not be so candid but you, JBW, asked tough questions so these candid answers are the result.
One thing that I will guarantee to JBW and any other administrator. If you unblock my daughter and me, I will not disappoint you. I will avoid trouble, like writing an article on a man featured in several news articles over the past 10 years. I will do everything I can, such as good editing, to support your reputation since any unblock would be a courageous action and an act of a truly thinking administrator, as opposed to a petty admin. That kind of thinking admin is what we need in WP. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To JBW and any other reviewing administrator: I strongly oppose this user being blocked unblocked. Everything they say, at incredible length, confirms that they are untrustworthy and not an asset to this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE: Bbb23 is the blocking admin. Of course, he/she will stand by their decision. I have contributed or created 2 DYK articles and 2 ITN articles. What have you done in the past month as far as editing? It seems like not much. Please be kind and do not try to create trouble by stubbornly defending your decision. In the courts, if there is an appeal, the original judge does not sit on the appeal court to make the decision or even try to influence the appeals court. As far as Wikipedia, remember your oath....WP:AGF
Another way you, Bbb23, can demonstrate your concern for the Wikipedia project is to unblock me and then act as my mentor for 30 days (See WP:AGF and I assume in good faith that you are truly concerned about the Wikipedia encyclopedia project). That way, you will have frequent contact with me and will be able to report true facts rather than nasty accusations. I encourage you to be an asset to the Wikipedia project and accept this offer of mentorship. You have shown that you have the power of the police to bash the head of the other person but can you reform and counsel Wikipedians? I hope you can. Charliestalnaker (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm the checkuser who got involved with this at the SPI, and I hope to offer some clarifying remarks, because, as I hope my comments at the SPI indicated there is some nuance to be had here. I alluded to the fact there may be more than one person, and I do think this is likely. Having seen a few socks in my time, I would say the comment, "my daughter and I were using the family computer" is credible. I haven't seen the name "GeorgeSpectacular" mentioned yet on this page, which is something I'm still curious about. Anyway, I view these accounts as a sideshow, with more room for unblocking, or to put it another way, less room for blocking. The real problem is the coordination between Charliestalnaker and the EVsPolluteAlso/RTripathiKarnataka identities. I am genuinely unable to say if these are the same person. Charliestalnaker describes this as "work colleagues [using] a work computer", and that makes them indistinguishable. As noted at the SPI, these identities have crossed over at least three times: China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Dashrath Medical College, as well as at the Jason Moore article. These are all obscure topics. "There was NEVER any coordinated editing" doesn't quite seem to explain this. -- zzuuzz(talk)06:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. Your original report said all the users were using the same computer. Now, you confirm that this is not the case. My daughter, Candy, should be immediately unblocked. As far as China Eastern and Jason Moore, they were both covered on the home page of CNN.com and were not obscure topics for several days but was the topic of some intense banter at work (at work, we don't talk about women's bodies but talk about safe stuff, like the weather and the news). That is confirmed by the actual edits, which are not coordinated efforts to fake a consensus but just another user making 2 or 3 short edits. I can figure out who at work did this. One guy is ethnic Indian. At work, there is no computer in the work area but there is a computer in the office area in back. I might note that Bbb23 makes the accusation that edit summaries are used by a new user, hinting that implies guilt. To that, remember two things, WP:AGF and Bbb23's first edit had an unusually detailed edit summary. Charliestalnaker (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just briefly say that I've never seen the strategy of throwing shade at any other editors turn out well. Actually I do think you were using the same physical device - all these accounts have a weird technical signature. Though I'm willing to concede that may not be the case. -- zzuuzz(talk)10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am just an old guy with no technical skills. I work in a place than is not white collar or high tech. I cannot explain this "weird technical signature". I do suspect the ethnic Indian person at work being this Karnataka person, who let me know about this regular university in India that is quite notable in non-English press. I should have ignored that verbal comment.
I do agree that "never seen the strategy of throwing shade at any other editors turn out well". I agree. But the treatment I have received from Bbb23, who is so quick to ban (defacto lifetime block) but so slow to consider unblock (refusual), that it can irritate anyone. I also point out the power of the admin; he/she can throw shades at me but that doesn't matter. Think of the difference of power:admin versus accused WP editor. I see your point and say a genuine sorry.
I also once again call for the unblock of my daughter, CandyStalnak, which appears to be ok (called "credible") per the checkuser. She is very disillusioned about this whole Wikipedia stuff and how she is being victimized. I told her life can be tough and people can be mean, even if they are unwittingly or unitentionally nasty. Charliestalnaker (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misc. comments
My daughter is keeping track of this saga. She is pissed off and talked about what I call due process. There was not rampant vandalism so there could easily have been discussion before blocking. Because she is watching, I cannot take the path of least resistance, which is false confession. The path of least resistance might be to admit to sockpuppetry, confess, and ask for forgiveness. However I cannot make an example to her to do the easy, but wrong path. The correct events are just what I described at length. It was casual conversations with work colleagues about the news and other things that brought about this. There was no massive coordination of meatpuppetry and no sockpuppetry.
One admin wrote "Looking at editing history I couldn't see enough evidence to be sure that the sockpuppetry charge was justified.". The checkuser wrote " Having seen a few socks in my time, I would say the comment, "my daughter and I were using the family computer" is credible....Anyway, I view these accounts as a sideshow, with more room for unblocking, or to put it another way, less room for blocking."
Let's AGF. I am willing to undergo mentorship if unblocked and demonstrate to my daughter of how to manage adversity and how others with power treat others. Charliestalnaker (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Charliestalnaker. These things usually take time to resolve, especially in June, so have a little patience. I believe it would be my intention to propose lifting the block on CandyStalnak, and also GeorgeSpectacular. I don't really expect GeorgeSpectacular to edit again, but we can cross that bridge if it turns up. I would also propose that your block is converted to 'time served', and that the blocks on the other two accounts remain until potentially successfully appealed (with the possibility for only one of them to be lifted). And potentially there'd be some kind of admonition about coordinated editing. I'd want to hear from Bbb23, who is unlikely to be too happy, and any other commentators. Again, it's June. -- zzuuzz(talk)05:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: Ya think? I didn't know that June was a slow month. It's been slow weather-wise where I live - by the time it's technically summer we will realize that we never had a proper spring. But I don't suppose Charlie or his daughter cares about my weather problems, too busy being angry. I had no idea that we were here to help parents with civics lessons to their children. Don't they teach these things in school anymore? End of sarcasm and hopefully my last comment because it will no doubt subject me to additional invective.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hello. I'm sorry to have left you while the whole thing about the block was unresolved. I have been in hospital having major surgery, and I really did not feel up to getting involved in the controversy which it seemed might occur. I finally decided today that I did feel capable of dealing with it, and came here to do so, only to find that it was already done some time ago. I am glad that you have been unblocked, and sorry that you were exposed to such an unpleasant experience of how Wikipedia can work at times. I hope you and your daughter can now edit constructively without experiencing similar problems again. JBW (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed much better, thank you, though there's still a way to go. I am truly disappointed that unblocking you was so short lived. I really had hoped, as I said, that you would be able to edit without experiencing similar problems again. However, I'm afraid I have to say that, even if the first block was mistaken, this time you really brought it on yourself. It would have been much better for you to have just got on with improving articles, and forgotten about your disapproval of Bbb23, no matter how much or how little justification there was for that disapproval. JBW (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But look at the little edit that I did and Yamla got SO angry. This is a good case to examine because the number of edits are so few. We can see how little it takes for Yamla to block for 1 hour and then block forever. The question is if this single edit (10:11, 4 July 2022) breaks Wikipedia policy so drastically that blocking for a lifetime, in essence a ban, is justified. I'd say "no".
@JBW, I encourage and ask you to reduce the block to a finite period, not a lifetime. And look at the valuable edit that I did do in the short period. There was a crash and it was extremely similar to another one but I was the only one to make the link between the two articles, something a reader would find of value. Charliestalnaker (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revoke talk page access for that user. And regardless, that user still has a path to contest their block (WP:UTRS). I'll warn you again, WP:DROPTHESTICK. You won't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is really draconian of you. Why don't you drop the stick? However, I am deeply sorry for offending an administrator of the Great Internet Encyclopedia of Wikipedia. You have infinite wisdom and a wide breath of knowledge that I can never compare with. With most humble sorrow and sadness, I humbly withdraw from Wikipedia after this edit for the rest of today. Please continue with your great editorial contributions and skill, great one, Yamla. Charliestalnaker (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}.
