User talk:Geographicman2022

March 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Irish language, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 21:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More info is available at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, Manual_of_Style/Icons the "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes" section. That's where the prevailing community consensus is described. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommi1986 and Willondon. I just adding flag because the articles will look better and atractive, just like I did in Irish language, I put the flag of the Republic of Ireland, is a sovereign state. Geographicman2022 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter weather you think it 'looks better' it it against wikipedia MOS, you have been told this and directed to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, continuing to add after been told by two experienced editors could result in a block. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 22:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep making changes that go against the consensus of the community, you are just going to get blocked from editing. Some ways are good on the one hand, but on the other hand, not. Through time, the Wikimedia community hashes it out and decides one way or another. The "WP:" pages and Manuals of style document the conclusions the community has arrived at. They can change, but to do that, you need to discuss and convince people that it looks nice, and should be done that way. Otherwise, you'll just get reverted until you get blocked. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Willondon. Ok, I promise to avoid to replace the form of official status such as I did in Tatar language, sorry about that. I hope that what I say is understandable, sorry. Geographicman2022 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographicman2022, it would seem you are here to genuinely improve Wikipedia, so my suggestion would be to have a look at these, Contributing to Wikipedia, Getting Started and Do's and Don'ts. Also The Teahouse is a great place to ask any questions you may have. Also you can leave me a message on my talk page as well. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 22:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mistake, I didn't do anything serious

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).

Geographicman2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Scottywong what did I do? I just made a mistake and some users made me see what I was doing wrong, and I understood it, my problem was adding flags in the official status section in articles about languages, they told me what I was doing wrong, and I didn't understand it at first and then finally I understood it, even in my last message they told me that I was improving Wikipedia, I felt grateful, because I felt grateful because in my first day they tell me that i'm improving so much Wikipedia, I earned that recognition because the user Tommi1986 saw that I already understood my mistake and that I was going to correct it, And then they suddenly block me, because you saw what I was doing as something more serious, when it was a misunderstanding, which I was going to correct. That's why I request to be unblocked, they blocked me by mistake, because I've seen that blocks occur when there are more serious cases, including persistence and edit wars, I was about to make an edit war, so I decided to stop, to don't get me in trouble. So please, you misunderstood, I didn't insist so much on my edits that I want to be unblocked. Geographicman2022 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After our discussion below, I'm not convinced that this user understands what they did wrong, or that they sincerely want to edit WP in a productive way. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:07, 3 March 2022 (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.

What's an edit war? _signed,Willondon (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Willondon. Answering your question, I saw that an edit war is when one or more users or IPs persist in editing an article so much and that is why a user can be blocked, I was about to do that, but I stop in time to not get blocked, but I was blocked anyway. Geographicman2022 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made 71 edits to WP, and at least 39 of them were reverted by other users (so far). That's more than half of your edits being rejected by other experienced editors. Why do you think they did that? Also, even after you were warned above, you continued to go on making the same types of edits, and other editors continued to revert you. This is highly disruptive; all you're doing is causing work for other people. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong. But I only did it once but I'm really sorry anyway, I know I didn't obey the first time and I'm sorry, that's why I want you to please give me a few or one more chance for me, look it's my first day here on Wikipedia, and my intention was not to abuse Wikipedia, I wanted to contribute, even Tommi1986 realized that it was improving that he wrote me a message that my edits are improving Wikipedia a lot, if you want to ask Tommi, ask him, I'm saying the truth. Geographicman2022 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt it's your first day on Wikipedia. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for believing me, but can you please or someone else read my unblock request? Geographicman2022 (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be accepting your unblock request, but I'm happy to leave it open for another admin to review. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you accept my request? If I said it was a mistake and a misunderstanding. Geographicman2022 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was a mistake and promised not to do it above, and then went right back to doing the same thing. So, frankly, I don't believe you. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the first step towards getting unblocked would be to explain, in detail, exactly what you did wrong. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say you don't believe me? It seems that you are not understanding me well, I said that I disobeyed the first one and I stopped, after that I only added links to the countries, regions or territories where a language is official, I understood that I should not add flags. And another thing, in that request I explained well what I did wrong, and I'm waiting. Geographicman2022 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, here you said you understood what you did wrong with the flags. Yet somehow, 3 minutes later, here you are messing with flags again. If you understood what you were doing wrong, why did you go right back to doing it? Either you don't actually understand what you're doing wrong, or you don't care. In both cases, I can't unblock you. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right I did, but I continued once, I forgot I said I got it, I must have thought about it, but I swear THIS TIME I'm going to stop and I won't do that anymore, please believe me, unblock me. I will not do it again, I recognize that, give me even one chance, please think about it, look that I have two incovenients. Geographicman2022 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very sad to see that even after being told by other editors, accepting the mistakes you were making and promising to stop, you immediately went back to messing with flags. I honestly thought (hence my advice to you earlier) that you were here to be productive. Please don't mistake my advice for saying your edits WERE improving Wikipedia, my advice was that if you wish to contribute productively to read through the policies, advice and basic tutorials available on Wikipedia. Perhaps while your block is in place you should read through what I mentioned. I hope that, if and when, your block is removed you have learnt enough to become a decent contributor here, and if you are in doubt reach out to a more experienced editor. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really saw my mistake and that's why I don't want to be blocked forever.

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).

Geographicman2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I already saw my mistake, I didn't think twice after I said "I promise not to do it again" and I did it again, I accept my block, but please not forever, this problem is not so serious, but I still won't take advantage of that, this time I really swear not to do that again, I know I won't be unlocked immediately, for breaking my promise I deserve a few days of blocking, but please not forever, I said that I really won't do that again, putting flags, NOW I UNDERSTOOD IT. And I also promise to think better how my editing in any article is worth publishing or not, it can damage something, etc. Please think about it, Look, I only broke a promise once, I wouldn't be able to break a promise again. Geographicman2022 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not convincing. You are telling us you promise not to do it again, but you've previously demonstrated your promises are false. Nothing here convinces me otherwise. Yamla (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2022 (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.

Please change my block settings

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).

Geographicman2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please any admin, change my block settings, don't block me forever, this case is not so much serious, I know I broke my promise, but there's no a punishment like block definitely, I'm sorry anyway, but I want to continue editing on Wikipedia and well, so please don't block me forever, just a couple of days that they help me to reflect on what I did, please I don't want be blocked forever but I know that I did something wrong, and I want to pay for my mistakes, just a couple of days, no forever. Geographicman2022 (talk) 14:47 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A block is not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. The block is not "forever", it is until we are satisfied there will be no more disruption from you. Once you break a promise, it becomes very difficult to trust you and to also get that trust back. The only- and slim- pathway you have to get back to editing is the standard offer. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2022 (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.

@331dot. I have to wait six months? In other words, when six months go by without evading, without using another IP, will I gain trust again and edit Wikipedia again? Six months? I can not believe it, why I have to wait so much? Six months. Geographicman2022 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you should have considered that before breaking promises and otherwise editing inappropriately. The Standard Offer is not a guarantee that you will be unblocked at that time, but it is most likely your only pathway forward. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot. In other words, what can they think about whether to unlock me or not when six months have passed? That's what you mean? And also do I have to have good behavior (no evading my block with sock puppets or IPs) during my block if I want to be unblocked? Geographicman2022 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No socking, no editing for six months. As I said, it is not a guarantee that you will be unblocked at that time, but if you do indeed refrain from editing and socking, that will be looked upon as a good thing. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot. In other words, do you mean that they are only going to think about unlocking me or not after six months? If my behavior has been good, without evasions and without creating sockpuppets?

I think tha the chances of you being unblocked before six months are small to nonexistent. The standard offer is your only pathway forward. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is not so much severe, but I reflected about my mistakes anyway.

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).

Geographicman2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Scottywong, Yamla, 331dot. I just realized that the block for re-adding flags in language articles is not so severe (Just in case, I am not going to take advantage of the fact that they are not serious to do it again), It does not matter that there is no date indicated for my unblocking, for a few days nothing more, that will serve me to reflect and think before doing it again. I say again, this problem was not so severe, I know I made mistakes, and I'm sorry, I know I broke JUST A PROMISE, so I'm ready to be unlocked, I totally understand what I did, but just in case this problem does not they are serious and I am ready to be unblocked, you will see that I will edit Wikipedia again and well, and for the next time I will listen and obey the first one, I just broke a promise, you can still continue to trust me, please, my intention is not It was breaking a promise (I didn't think I'd break a promise, I'm new so I'm a beginner) or abusing Wikipedia, I just wanted it to become attractive but I saw that my edits go against a law, I know I made a mistake but it wasn't that serious, please understand me. Look, I'm a rookie, give me a few more chances (Just in case, I wasn't going to take advantage of the fact that I'm "new" here in Wikipedia to make the same mistake again on purpose), you guys are being harsh with me, it was about being blocked for just a few days, I think it's enough for me to reflect, think twice so as not to make the same mistake again, please understand me, I beg you. 331dot and Scottywong. If they don't want to answer me here, then have another Wikipedia administrator answer me. Geographicman2022 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I didn't think twice after I said "I promise not to do it again" and I did it again -- indeed. "A few more chances" -- no. Six months WP:SO; talk page access will be removed if you continue the way you have been here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:29, 4 March 2022 (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.

My opinion remains unchanged, but I am curious as to the reason for your desperation to return to editing. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot. Of course I answer your question, what happens is that I made a mistake, but not so serious, that's why I don't want to be blocked without a date (In other words, there is no unblocking date), a few days of blocking is fine, because I am a newcomer, I did not think very well what I was going to do, and what I did by not thinking was to break a promise, I think that you are absolutely right to block me, but at least for a few days, a week, or 3 days. Geographicman2022 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever unblocks you is going to have to babysit your edits and make sure you don't return to causing problems. I don't have the time or interest in babysitting you. Maybe you'll get lucky and someone else will. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong. Why do you say you are not interested? I need help, I need to clarify that this is a misunderstanding, what I did was not so serious, that you block me for at least a few days because I am a newcomer (just in case, they were absolutely right to block me). So please, I ask you to be a little empathetic, put yourself in my place, you are not interested in a person who has a problem, who needs help, that you need to clarify that it was a misunderstanding, who have broken only ONE promise, you can continue to trust me, And like I said, I'm a newcomer and I didn't think twice about what I was going to do. Geographicman2022 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for not getting a block lifted early: (1) repeatedly refer to the transgression as "not so severe", and "not such a big deal"; (2) repeatedly petition admins to second guess the future and re-assess the length of the block right away, after a few hours, instead of waiting a couple of months to see if they have forgotten their annoyance at being pestered, and can look back on a decent passage of time with good behaviour to feel comfortable about lifting the block. _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Jpgordon

Please don't be harsh, be empathic, put yourself in my place, look, I'm a newcomer, look here WP:DNB, you should be a little more tolerant with me because I'm a newcomer (Just in case, I'm not going to take advantage of that), you answered "a few more chances" and said no, when a few opportunities because as I said I am new here, or at least one more opportunity. And you said that my talk page will be removed, when during my block nothing I was just arguing about my block I haven't said anything bad till now Geographicman2022 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please jpgordon or any admin, respond this comment. Geographicman2022 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, jpgordon respond my comment, I need help. Geographicman2022 (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to be unblocked

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).

Geographicman2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, it's been a few days of my block, which has helped me to reflect on what I did, so I think this block is enough, I have already reflected and now this time I will be a decent editor, see that during my block, I did not create sock puppets, or I didn't edit via IP to make the edits I was making that led to this block (Putting flags on language articles, when it's against policy). So I want to be unlocked, I already reflected. Geographicman2022 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your best chance of being unblocked is to take the standard offer, and not to edit for 6 months with no block evasion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2022 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: Talk page access removed as promised above; also, user has indeed been editing while blocked, so the six months for the WP:SO starts now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]