User talk:Rogiet
Dear Rogiet, thanks for your edits. As you can see from the page's history I did not revert your edits, but rather reverted this edit which was made after you by another user, who added incomprehensible content. Your edits are still visible in the current version of the page, and do not violate any rules. Thank you, --Mark91it's my world 23:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09239/092394d0a8c9e7e31e09b4188460a9cc3541ef3a" alt="Stop icon"
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. DrKay (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/30f48/30f48013f763ac772b31dd81931ab9b2d49404af" alt=""
Rogiet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, Could I respectfully ask that an administrator consider lifting the block that has been placed on my account? I fully understand the reason for the block, as I had foolishly added a couple of facetious and, what I thought were amusing, sentences regarding the last UK general election, specifically, MP candidates. I had thought these somewhat childish additions of mine would simply be deleted, but I realise now that they were not in the spirit of Wikipedia, adding to its accuracy as a factual and reliable resource, and in addition, I may have caused offence to certain individuals. If you look at my other edits from previous months / years, I hope and think it will be apparent that these others were serious and positive contributions and where possible, backed up by supporting references / citations. In short, I apologise for making these most recent immature and silly edits, and, if you choose to unblock me, I can assure you and the wider Wikipedia community that I will not repeat such childish vandalism, and that any contributions I make in future - if I were permitted - would be in the spirit of helping to add helpful and factual additions to pages. Thank you for your time in considering this unblock request, and I apologise once more for wasting peoples' time and for undermining the reliability of Wikipedia and its pages. Kind regards, Rogiet Rogiet (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Welcome back. DrKay (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! Much appreciated
January 2025
[edit] Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Enfield poltergeist. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough; understood. I will only correct the citation for Melvyn Willin's book, it is 'The Enfield Poltergeist Tapes'; White Crow is the publisher's name and not part of the title. See: https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/enfield-poltergeist-tapes-one-most-disturbing-cases-history-what-really-happened-melvyn
- Thanks Rogiet (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)