User talk:Greenpickles987

lol

Sss Greenpickles987 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Greenpickles987 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:PhoenixOS

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:PhoenixOS, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at May 22, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at May 22 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. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that is not vandalism, this is just adding a missing holiday Greenpickles987 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Motion picture content rating system, you may be blocked from editing. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Greenpickles987 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Greenpickles987. Lemonaka (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You removed content from Wikipedia with this edit of yours to Union City High School (New Jersey), but without providing a rationale for this in an edit summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Motion picture content rating system. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been block’d from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent further addition of unsourced content, re-addition of challenged content without a citation directly supporting the material, and edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aseleste‬ I have been blocked for a fortnight. Greenpickles987 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for making my 100th edit. Greenpickles987 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2023 (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).

Greenpickles987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will never add unsourced contentGreenpickles987 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. I will leave the decision on whether to make the block indefinite to the outcome of any future unblock requests. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2023 (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.

With Special:Diff/1135802316 and cross-wiki nonsense, I'd recommend removing the automatic expiration date from the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. If the reviewing admin takes a moment to look at his contribution history, over 90% of Greenpickles987's edits have been reverted. I was coming close to taking this editor to ANI myself, and I would refer the reviewing admin to the ongoing saga at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Changes_to_highlighting_at_content_ratings_articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean why would you? Just keep it into 2 weeks. Greenpickles987 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no assurance you will edit constructively in 2 weeks. Or in any given time. With an indefinite block time you will remain blocked until you show you can edit constructively. @ToBeFree: I endorse making block indefinite due to demonstrated inability to address reasons for the block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{@ToBeFree{{@Betty Logan{{@DeepfriedokraI will edit constructively in 2 weeks. Greenpickles987 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys. Greenpickles987 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with restoring my original message text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Greenpickles987 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deepfriedokra and Daniel Case; looking at the timestamps of your comments (I was confused for a moment by the non-chronological order and set the block to indefinite for a moment), I'll leave the block as is for now and we'll see what happens during or after the two weeks. That's fine with me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lemonaka (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka What are you referring to above? I don't see any edits that were made this account since their discussions with multiple admins that would warrant this warning.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See their edits on Fr-wiki, they tried to forge our signature in order to harass other people. @Ponyo Lemonaka (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree already pointed out these edits above. This warning isn't necessary, especially as no edits have been made since yesterday. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka: Not sure how germane that is on ENWIKI, beyond supporting my position that user should be indef blocked here. The place to deal with FRWIKI problems is on FRWIKI.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemonaka, Ponyo and Deepfriedokra, thank you, and I agree with what Ponyo said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra@ToBeFree@Ponyo Thank you all, I came back to Wikipedia after several days of break, got a ping from this user on Frwiki and wasn't sure what has happened. Lemonaka (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am already blocked for a fortnight.@Lemonaka Greenpickles987 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #68678

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Greenpickles987 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Betty Logan has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism, as you did here. The IP is in the right with the edits, so it’s probably best if you stop edit warring - you are removing correct information from the Film and Publication Board page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No he isn’t. Greenpickles987 (talk | contribs) 23:19, 11 February 2023 (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 ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why infinite and not for 2 weeks Greenpickles987 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request for an expiration date. Greenpickles987 (talk | contribs) 11:34, 16 February 2023 (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).

Greenpickles987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You blocked me forever, I will never add unsourced information ever again Greenpickles987 (talk

Decline reason:

Merely adding an expiration date to the block does not demonstrate your understanding of the reasons for the block or tell us what you will do differently. The block will be removed when you make a successful unblock request. Please read the unblock appeals guide to learn how to craft a request likely to be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2023 (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 2023

Talk page access has been restored to allow appealing the block using the {{unblock}} template ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #97156

is open. FWIW. Better than previous. Meh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – it's been over a year and the appeal at least seems to demonstrate a willingness to use this talk page for appealing the block rather than editing others' comments (Special:Diff/1140382165 led to the revocation back then). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🙃 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2024 (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).

Greenpickles987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will not try to make a Wikipedia a battleground like an edit war, I will try to resolve this situation.

Decline reason:

Sorry, given your history of multiple blocks and extensive unconstructive editing spanning over an extended period of time, I do not find this request sufficient. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 2 December 2024 (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.

Greenpickles987 (talk | contribs) 16:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]