User talk:CathayPacificFrequentFlyer

July 2020

Whenever you make a change to an article it is advisable to preview the page before saving it, to make sure that the change is doing what yo think it is. For example, you have twice added "company_slogan" to an infobox, but there is no such field as "company_slogan" in the infobox, so nothing showed up in the page. Even if you didn't know why it didn't show up, if you had looked to see what the change did you would have seen that it did nothing, and could have avoided making the mistake. JBW (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, JBW. Will apply a new editing approach to fulfill the requirement. Good day. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at TAAG Angola Airlines. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Seatguru.com is not a reliable source. You keep reverting me without explanations. Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what you’re talking about? How can you say seatguru isn’t a reliable source? Provide me VALID reasons, then I might stop my diSrUptiVE editing. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t give me any valid reasons, huh? You’re the one who’s editing disruptively. Shut up. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Saudia. Please stop changing the first sentence into an avoidable runon sentence and changing “domestic and international” to “domestic aninternational”. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn’t mean to. I swear man. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent disruptive editing from User:CathayPacificFrequentFlyer. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we could settle this amicably. I was just brought into a fit of rage earlier. You know, you should’ve explained to me what DISRUPTIVE editing really is. I got confused, then I got mad at you. But I really didn’t mean it, man. I swear. Whatever inconvenience I have caused, I take it back. Good day. Stay safe. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

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

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

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

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:10, 4 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

As far as I am concerned, I was not involved in any disruptive editing. I have been reinstating information in some pages because I think it was correct. However, I would like to be unblocked, provided that I will abide with such rules here, whatever they may be. Thanks.CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe this block is no longer necessary. I shall abide with all the policies wiki has. I will try to contribute meaningfully to articles, provided that I am informed if ever someone else thinks I edited an article incorrectly. Requesting for unblock clearance. Thank you. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. You will need to request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:17, 6 August 2020 (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.

This is a CU block. Meters (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for sockpuppetry as a person, i.e. for editing Wikipedia using multiple accounts and for bypassing previous blocks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh hi Admins! It’s nice to meet you all here. I humbly ask for your consideration to unblock me as I have already served the penalties of my violations. I admit that I am in the wrong. Please unblock me. Now, to erase that sock puppetry that has happened to my account, allow me to change my username perhaps? I hope that does the job. Thanks. Please do reply. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to continue editing wikipedia already. Whatever abuses that may still happen in the future, I am already allowing all of YOU to not save this account anymore. But please, for this instance, give me another chance to change my editing approaches so as to avoid any abuses. I humbly ask of your kind consideration. Thanks. God bless you all. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]