User talk:Leon103102

Welcome

Hello, Leon103102, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tuanminh01 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

S-line

You may want to fix up {{S-line/HK-MTR left/Beijing-Kowloon}} and {{S-line/HK-MTR right/Beijing-Kowloon}}; those currently show different values based on whether |type= [left cell]/|type2= [right cell] are "North" or "South", and I don't think that's usually done anymore. See {{S-line/HK-MTR left/Shanghai-Kowloon}} for an example. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Through train S-line rows

(Pinging MNXANL and Sameboat.) Is it necessary to add Through Train services to all stations where infrequent services stop (see this edit)? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. MNXANL (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Narita Shinkansen. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Skylon (spacecraft). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- GliderMaven (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at East Rail Line, you may be blocked from editing. Citobun (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Rail Line

Why do you keep changing the stated operating speed of the East Rail Line to 200 kph? Citobun (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

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:50.161.95.89. BilCat (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39. Please stop adding wrong information into launch pad articles. Cancelled rockets and projects that were never completed do not belong there; your edits are very confusing to readers. — JFG ^talk 05:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ares V, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Spencer^T♦C 17:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Space Station Freedom. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spencer^T♦C 17:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Space Station Freedom. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced cargo additions

Please stop adding cargo flights that are not sourced and are irregular/charter cargo flights. Using quick checks on FlightAware, the majority of these routes you have added are not operating and should not be listed. Please use sources for your adds or they will be removed. Thanks. Stinger20 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your continued abuse of Wikipedia due to unsourced changes and general disruptive editing, both on this account and while not logged in, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing. This means you may not edit while logged out or by any other means. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:09, 2 August 2017 (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).

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for adding unsourced and poorly sourced content can you please unblock my IP?Leon103102 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2017 (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

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2017 (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.

Leon103102 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2017 (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).

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is not necessary needed because I know what I was blocked for. I know I will make useful contributions instead and willing cause damage or disruption to Wikipedia.Leon103102 (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2017 (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) 11:56, 24 August 2017 (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.

Leon103102 (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you have time and time again edited through your block using IP addresses, despite warnings, I see no reason to trust you with an unblock. You've shown no evidence of even attempting to follow the rules on this site. I would strongly suggest you find another website to entertain yourself with. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:47, 24 August 2017 (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).

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for what I done can you please unblock me? Leon103102 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Leon103102 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Frivolous duplicate request. MER-C 04:27, 26 August 2017 (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.

@Leon103102: Repeating the same one-liner "sorry" in successive unblock requests will not advance your cause one inch. In fact you may be digging a deeper hole for yourself. Either write a proper request or stop posting. Be aware that admins may revoke your talk page access if you exhaust their patience. I would also encourage you to read WP:CIR and learn how to become a better Wikipedian. — JFG ^talk 09:10, 25 August 2017 (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).

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't add any unsourced or poorly sourced content it was 73.158.81.251 (talk) that did it not me.Leon103102 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yeah, sure. Your ability to make further appeals has been withdrawn. MER-C 04:27, 26 August 2017 (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 blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19210 was submitted on Sep 12, 2017 02:46:27. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19362 was submitted on Sep 28, 2017 04:06:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19817 was submitted on Nov 21, 2017 02:17:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19902 was submitted on Nov 30, 2017 05:45:27. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Due to repeated appeals at UTRS that fail to address the reasons for the block, I have blocked Leon103102 from making further appeals for 3 months.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 5 December 2017 (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).

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary to me because I understand what I’ve been blocked for and will not cause any damage or disruption to Wikipedia and will make useful contributions instead.73.93.155.145 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Interestingly, you made this appeal while not logged in and while evading your block. I think a more detailed description of what edits you will or will not make is required. Thanks. 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. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2017 (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).

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary to me because I understand what I’ve been blocked for will not continue adding unsourced content and will cite my sources instead.107.77.231.22 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests on user accounts are only considered from those accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:59, 1 April 2018 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leon103102, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tornado chaser (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

apparently you are evading your block, so no. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email response

Regarding the email you sent to me, no, I will not unblock you. There is not, and has never been, any evidence that you understand the reason for your block or are the least bit regretful for your past actions. If you are desperate to edit a wiki, consider finding a fan site over at Wikia. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

This user has been engaging in block evasion as of February, 2018. --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21100 was submitted on Apr 04, 2018 18:50:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21486 was submitted on May 10, 2018 04:51:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above by Yamla, this user has engaged in block evasion. Just caught them evading again in May 2018. -- Dane ^talk 15:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to continued block evasion, this user is now banned from Wikipedia under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leon103102, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

\\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 04:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22129 was submitted on Jul 20, 2018 22:10:26. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24812 was submitted on Apr 20, 2019 22:49:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24819 was submitted on Apr 21, 2019 10:29:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leon103102, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Lupin VII (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leon103102, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Lupin VII (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #27419 was submitted on Nov 01, 2019 19:19:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Leon103102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #29671 was submitted on Apr 21, 2019 10:29:53. This review is now closed.

--331dot (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 39194 declined

UTRS appeal #39194 has been declined

At this time, the English Wikipedia unblock team is declining your unblock request and will not hear your. This a checkuser block, and you are banned by the community. Your avenue of appeal is to email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en

wikimedia.org. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]