User talk:Swift0ne1
June 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm Raladic. An edit that you recently made to Bakevelliidae seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Raladic (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Praecardiida, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Bartonian. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Swift0ne1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
"Insert your reason to be unblocked here" is not a reason to unblock you. Please provide a reason for your request. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
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.
- You cannot refactor or alter the block notice or the above declined unblock request. You must create a new unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Swift0ne1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am completely new to Wikipedia editing and account creation. The follow up post which was not logged in as my account was not an attempt to evade anything, I simply responded to a talk I'm subscribed to without being logged in as I am not accustomed to the process. If I wanted to evade the block, it would take me a fraction of the time to do so below the table, as you well know. Were I tryiny to evade the block, I wouldn't be spending the time here presenting my case and acknowledging my mistakes. I believe my argument on that article is absolutely in good faith. As far as the 10 edits I made, it was indeed to gain editing permission, however the edits were indeed tests and certainly not egregious. A prrmanent ban is the consequence with no time to consume a warning? I was unaware of the impact and the full scope of the rules and guidelines. The violations you are seeing is clearly a case of a new user trying to understand the system and act in good faith. I acknowledge that, and better understand the editing mechanism moving forward. Thanks for your guidance. Having read the article on "Gaming the system", my violation and the impact of that violation is minimal. The disruption of my mistake and the associated edits are minimal. The article calls out, "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith." I was given multiple "warnings" in the same minute, followed by a permanent ban less than 30 limited later. The average person is unable to receive and react to a warning in such a time. Please reconsider the weight of your response. I understand my mistakes, hold myself accountable and acknowledge the guidelines and rules moving forward. I made several seemingly non intrusive test edits in a short period of time believing they would cause no damage. I am now aware there is a sand box for testing and better understand the scope of editing, the impact of my actions and the associated rules. I do not dispute the logic behind my initial block was sound, to raise awareness. I do find it extensive to receive warnings and a block within such a short period of time, unable to receive the feedback. A permanent ban also seems extensive given the nature of my edits were simply blank space insertion. Perhaps a 3 day ban with warnings would be more appropriate? That said, I do understand the nature of my violation, the scope of editing, and have every intention to participate in good faith, with respect to community rules and guidelines. Apologies for the disruption, thanks for your time.Swift0ne1 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Self-admitted abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
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 to reviewing admin: In crafting this lastest unblock request, the user also removed some rather important history; that should be looked at before any response.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are not "permanently banned"- you are blocked until you convince an admin to remove it. A ban is something else entirely. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- In all fairness to Swift0ne1, their edits were made around 9 hours before they suddenly received three warnings in (at most) two minutes, and then a block. At AIV, that would frequently get the response "stale, re-report if the user resumes disruption". That said, the edit summaries and such do raise questions... Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 15:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)