User talk:Pohlmark

Hello Pwyl Pollock, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Pwyl Pollock, good luck, and have fun. – Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 06:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

September 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Daniel Ek has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Daniel Ek was changed by Pwyl Pollock (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.966834 on 2015-09-24T16:54:32+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Triple J Hottest 100 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Triple J Hottest 100 was changed by Pwyl Pollock (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.959585 on 2016-01-30T04:22:25+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brad Hazzard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 09:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

??? Why have I been blocked indefinitely? One strike and I’m out? I don’t see how that was “vandalism”. Protesting against the man is illegal. Parliament is suspended, so he’s not being challenged or scrutinised. A simple Wikipedia edit is one of the very small avenues a person can voice any sort of discontent with the policies he’s perpetuating that are destroying livelihoods, have some empathy and compassion for those of us locked down and bitterly angry with his perpetual home imprisonment of us. Pohlmark (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m any case you could have simply reverted the edit and made a comment “don’t do that”. Banning me from wikiiedia for it seems extraordinarily tone deaf and I empathetic to what’s going on in New South Wales. Pohlmark (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unempathetic Pohlmark (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've barely made a single constructive edit to Wikipedia since 2014. -- Longhair\^talk 19:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? I’ve avoided Wikipedia because of editor attitudes like this. A warning would be appropriate not a lifetime ban. It’s extreme and unnecessarily punitive. Especially given lockdown. Well there goes my donation then. Forget it. Pohlmark (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve also banned the entire IP address. Which adversely affects at least 8 families and guests. Again, a warning would have been more appropriate. Pohlmark (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be unblocking you. You should have considered your behaviour here if others are now affected. If you wish to seek an unblock, follow the directions in the block notice above. -- Longhair\^talk 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extraordinary abuse of admin powers and I will be seeking to have you removed. Pohlmark (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can do as you please. Refer to your own abuse of editing privileges which were revoked for good reason. Have a good day. BTW, as an Australian, I am also in lockdown. But I pass the time somewhat more constructively. -- Longhair\^talk 21:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

less constructively. You’re adding restrictions to those already restricted. This makes your abuse even worse. Again, a warning would have been appropriate. But then extreme punitive measures are in vogue in Australia. $1000 fine for sitting down or going to a store 2 miles away but in a different LGA. $5000 fines handed out to people banned from working who’ve lost everything. Imprisonment for protesting the extreme lockdown measures.

And here you are, banning a user for life, for voicing a protest at the architect of so much misery in New South Wales. You’re a tool of the autocratic state and you’re abusing your authority. Eventually, there will be a reckoning. Pohlmark (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're welcome to request to be unblocked. I'll remind you again, your entire editing career has been little more than vandalism. And now you think Wikipedia is your soapbox? It's not. I won't be replying any further. Good luck with everything, and all the best dealing with things from here. -- Longhair\^talk 21:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not fact. You’ve made poor bad faith assumptions. I never said Wikipedia was my soapbox. I simply said Brad Hazzard is evil. To revert the edit it’s a one click rectification on your end. Simple and done. Haha we all had a laugh and let out some discontent. Had I engaged in an edit war and undone your reversion, well now we escalate with threat of a block. If I keep reverting the edit, we’ll then blocked for a week. If after a week I keep reverting the edit, well then a life ban. But you went straight to the life ban. This is misuse of power and all done in bad faith on incorrect assumptions. Pohlmark (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was accused of being a vandalism only account. Check my early edits, this is clearly not the case. I didn’t realise my recent humorous edits were considered a breach so serious that such a severe punishment was to be meted out. Permanent lifetime ban? For the whole family at this IP address?

We’ve spent over a year being blocked. There are children unable to learn about Wiki editing as a result. Would you please reconsider this punishment and allow us to edit again. The lesson has more than been communicated.

Thanks

The Pohlmark Family Pohlmark (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I did check your early edits. All of your edits since 24 September 2015 have been vandalism. "Recent"? The block is appropriate. The IP isn't blocked, except when this account edits, at which point the autoblock clicks in. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:24, 29 December 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 edits do you want to make, if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a "permanent lifetime ban"; a ban is different from a block; you have a block which will be removed when you make a successful unblock request. Only a single person should have access to your account, but you seem to suggest your whole family has access. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you teach your children about Wikipedia editing at home during the public health measures? 331dot (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a single user. But the kids can’t create accounts because the IP address has been blocked all year.

Regarding edits: I went in to correct Jacques Kallis page which has incorrect info on it. A small wording issue but one that ignores Graeme Pollock. That’s when I realised I was still blocked/banned/restricted whatever synonym you want to use. Pohlmark (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]