User talk:Aman 1203

December 2018
Hello, I'm DeniedClub. An edit that you recently made to Kolbe–Schmitt reaction seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the 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!  Denied Club ❯❯❯ talk?  06:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kolbe–Schmitt reaction. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Kolbe–Schmitt reaction was changed by Aman 1203 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.976291 on 2018-12-27T06:55:35+00:00

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Arndt–Eistert reaction, you may be blocked from editing. Binod Basnet  (talk)  06:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Kolbe–Schmitt reaction.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Materialscientist (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Having gone through all their edits and noticing that in fact their vandalism did peter out towards the end (though they did forget to cite sources), I'm leaning towards giving Aman 1203 a final chance, assuming they will say here and now that they will read any relevant guidelines before editing again. What do you think, ?  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  12:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see no evidence of any constructive contributions from this user. template:2nd chance may be an option here. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not all vandalism and there were some attempts at constructive contributions (though not successful, as Yamla says). But I see genuine good faith in the latest unblock request, and I'd be minded to accept it and unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I considered 2nd chance with the last unblock request, but simply didn't find it convincing enough that time. Their latest unblock request certainly is enough for me to agree to extending that offer to them. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to 2nd chance or just a straight unblock (knowing WP:ROPE applies), whichever you see fit. --Yamla (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never really liked the 2nd chance thing myself, as it seems over-specific and bureaucratic for newcomers who are just learning the ropes and not sure how they want to help yet - eg for people just wanting to fix spelling and grammar, revert vandalism, etc. I'd go for a simple unblock, with WP:ROPE in mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Same. If they'll edit constructively, they'll do so without the badgering. If we need to badger them, we don't really want them editing anyway.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  01:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks.

{helpme- Can we add more details to an existing wikipedia page?} Shared accounts are not permitted. Is this a shared account? To answer your question, this account is not directly blocked and so yes, you should be able to edit. Any further vandalism will result in an immediate and indefinite block, though. So, make sure your edit is appropriate. Also, make sure you preview your edits. --Yamla (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)