User talk:Simonmana

July 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Draft:S4 League (videogame). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will send it for approval in the mean time then.Simonmana (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per your wish, I have blocked this account. If you can give some indication that you'll move on to another topic, I'd be happy to discuss this action. Kuru (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would give an indication as to why im being forced and basicly censored from this current topic maybe.Simonmana (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked because an admin bloc claims that their POV determines notability.They underminded the delete discussion with the person nominating the article not even commenting as to why or willing to argue his point later on i had been called an it as a personal attack against me.And also certian users have sticked around to continue blocking and harrasing me.

Decline reason:

No means no. MER-C 06:38, 2 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked because an admin bloc claims that their POV determines notability.They underminded the delete discussion with the person nominating the article not even commenting as to why or willing to argue his point later on i had been called an it as a personal attack against me.And also certian users have sticked around to continue blocking and harrasing me.

Decline reason:

You've already had that exact unblock request declined. While you are welcome to make a new unblock request, addressing the concerns that lead to your prior unblock request being declined, an exact copy-and-paste is abusive and may result in your talk page access being revoked. Yamla (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i put the same request was the fact it was not adressed it was simply declined/dismissed with no explanation as to why so until it is i will use it Simonmana (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked because an admin bloc claims that their POV determines notability.They underminded the delete discussion with the person nominating the article not even commenting as to why or willing to argue his point later on i had been called an it as a personal attack against me.And also certian users have sticked around to continue blocking and harrasing me.Also the blocker has said he will discuss it with me which after my response he did not.Implying that i am to sockpupet if id want to as he says move on to apperently wonderland where those users who keep harrasing and blocking everything i do dont exist.They have relentlessly refused to comment and therefore break policies in order to censor anything related with a comepletly notable(its a subjective term and means nothing but sure ill address it since they havent got the memo) and reliably sourced(to the extent of what wikipedia considers reliable which in 2016 is basicly nothing since all relevant topics regarding the Video Games category has moved on from written articles and to a more credible video format)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDHT. Making the same unblock request again without adequately addressing the reason for your block will likely result in the loss of your talk page access. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to you adressing the block would mean what exactly because anyone can spew vauge things like that and try to make it a valid reason.Nice links that dont apply here.To give context to my situation i have to talk about others you may not like that but so what?Also there is no point to get if they havent said one. Simonmana (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

same as the above since it still is being ignored and not adressed and just to be safe since it doesnt mention if the old decission can be reverted great template design /s

Decline reason:

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked. See WP:UTRS if you want to make any further appeals. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2016 (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 their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16268 was submitted on Aug 02, 2016 14:40:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simonmana, if you continue to evade your block logged out, I will extend the block on your main account. Kuru (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cant it is indefinite dont you remmeber?Also stop stalking me.90.154.195.93 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I presume you're done making unblock requests. Kuru (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #16272 was submitted on Aug 03, 2016 13:02:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #16273 was submitted on Aug 03, 2016 13:59:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2019[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).

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

Request reason:

I'ts been way longer than 6 months. I dont plan on creating articles so as to avoid these kinds of situations. So i dont see this issue happening again. Simonmana (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm going to permit you to make an example of a substantive edit(not just a spelling or grammar correction) that you want to make. If you don't wish to do that, you are free to decline, but it could help you. This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2019 (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: I restored talk page access to allow for this appeal following a conversation on IRC. – bradv🍁 00:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What edits do you intend to make if unblocked? 331dot (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that need updating such as TV show pages, video game related topics, and the ever expanding list of Kpop pages.And maybe more, but these are things i can say for sure i know enough about as to edit their articles. I dont plan on creating an article from scratch as of right now.Since previously views on what its actually said in the notability guidelines word for word and what it gets condensed to has differed.Simonmana (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah im not here to beg forgivenes or to prove myself to random people who blocked me wrongly in the first place.I was here to get the account unblocked as to keep my edits under one account instead of IP. So instead can you delete this account and or direct me on how to do it if you cant?Seems wikipedia isnt worth it with the horrible attitude it has shown over the years. Simonmana (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted; if you no longer wish to edit, simply stop using your account. I wasn't trying to make you beg, I don't want you to beg. I want you to show an example of a substantive edit you want to make. If you don't wish to, that's fine with me. You are free to decline that offer and request unblock without doing so. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats a shame.I was expecting an unblock which isnt hard for you to click. Instead i got an invitation to please you in accordance to your own liking. Seems having an account is not worth it when changes have been shown to be made faster with an IP. And not having to go through c*ck blocking from randoms.Simonmana (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about pleasing me(in fact, someone else would review any other request you make) it was about you demonstrating that you have learned from your errors. If you intend to evade your block by editing under IPs, there is nothing else to discuss. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt. Which is why ive wasted 3 days on a simple unblock request.Wheter it be you or the bully who blocked me itd be pleasing someone if not out right begging.I never made an error.I got my 3 thrid party sources or whatever the number was and cited them.The person just wasnt expecting me to do it.So he got pissed and called his friends.The idea i made an error there is wrong if not worse.I wouldnt use that term.Simonmana (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call it whatever you wish, but unless you demonstrate how your actions will be different going forward, there is no pathway to being unblocked for you. I've offered you a way to do that, you can make use of it, or decline and demonstrate how you will change another way. If you don't wish to do either of those things, then there is nothing else to discuss. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can look through my contributions for your first request all mighty master.As for the second,i dont see what you want to be changed?Feel free to elaborate.Simonmana (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've said how you can proceed; I will have no other comment on this matter(unless another admin requests it). You are free to make another unblock request to attempt to convince another admin to unblock you without you doing as I have suggested. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'ts been way longer than 6 months. I dont plan on creating articles so as to avoid these kinds of situations. So i dont see this issue happening again.Simonmana (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your attitude while requesting an unblock demonstrates that you do not have the collaborative skills or civility required to edit here. As you continue to make personal attacks and allegations against other editors, I have again revoked your talk page access. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 13 August 2019 (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.

Unblock discussion[edit]

Can anyone see past the enormous wood chip to a benefit to the project in unblocking? Thoroughly non-plussed by what I see on this talk page. Not outrightly declining, but jeez.-- Dloh cier ekim 17:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you not plussed about?There also no chips or whatever here.So its unclear what is giving you issues seeing.Im not the one constantly referencing and bringing up crap from 3 years ago and asking me about it.Like, i told them im not interested in talking about it.Because:

A. They refuse to get the point of me clearly getting what was asked of me from the guidelines as to make it notable at the time.

B. Im not interested in creating articles from scratch that arent popular so as to avoid people who might not get it.

And if you are looking for me to tell you i agree with them now, forget about it. Im agreeing to disagree at best, concerning that page and thats it on that topic.So itd be nice if whoever it is doesnt keep pestering me about it.Because if thats your intention just move on.If you do indeed have actual questions and not snarky comments feel free to ask them. Simonmana (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your email[edit]

As you emailed me requesting specific instances of incivility and a demonstration of a lack of collaboration please see the examples below. Note they all occurred after your talk page access was restored to make a new appeal, under the section header "2019":

"Yeah im not here to beg forgivenes or to prove myself to random people who blocked me wrongly in the first place" (WP:IDHT)
"I was here to get the account unblocked as to keep my edits under one account instead of IP" (editing as an IP while blocked violates WP:SOCK)
"Seems having an account is not worth it when changes have been shown to be made faster with an IP"(again, a violation of WP:SOCK)
"having to go through c*ck blocking from randoms" (uncivil)
"the bully who blocked me" (personal attack)
"So he got pissed and called his friends" (unfounded accusations)

These comments, combined with your entire attitude in the unblock discussion, demonstrate that you do not have the collaborative skills or civility required to edit here. Which is precisely what I wrote when I declined your appeal. Please do not email me again, I will not be responding further.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue to spam me with the same email (verbatim August 14, August 17, August 19) despite my clear request to not email me, I have removed your email access. WP:UTRS remains available for appeals.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]