User talk:Gong man 19

April 2023
Hello, I'm SkyWarrior. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Fearing Pond have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. SkyWarrior 23:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fearing Pond. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Moons of Io (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Hi SkyWarrior,
 * I am glad that somebody is paying attention to Wikapedia edits since this online encylcopedia is only as good as its users. I would fully support those revisions had they been untrue, however all of those additions are completely true. The pond is colloqiually reffered to as the "Gong" and many important events in US history happened there such as the Great Gong Flood of 1919, The Gongpot Dome Scandal, The 'Gong-gate' scandal, The Iran-Gongtra Affair and the Clinton-Gonginsky Scandal just to name a few. I would ask that you take a second look and allow this important information to be displayed.
 * Thank you,
 * Gong Man 19 Gong man 19 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 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:. DanCherek (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Gong man 19 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * FWIW, they kinda addressed this point in the UTRS appeal #72628 section. Kinda.--  Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

is closed. And based on the "sandbox" malarkey, I would be inclined to oppose unblocking. The Gonggate nonsense above says user knew the edits were live. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought he was editting my version of things which is why I was confused and asked them to put it back. I thought it was like Github where I have my branch and then I have to push it to main. I would not have done it if I thought everything is always editted on main Gong man 19 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's hold that in abeyance and move on to the crux of the matter. If we were to unblock you, what would you do that was different from before? What constructive edits would you make? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any specific plans but I won't be posting jokes in articles. In a show of good faith, I will do copy-editing/proofreading on an article of your choice. Gong man 19 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdraw my objection to unblocking-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits came on the tail end of a string of questionable IP edits on the Fearing Pond article (#1, #2, #3), including:
 * 23:21, 25 April 2023‎ . . (4,055 bytes)  (Added information about the Gong-gate scandal of 1972)
 * 23:16, 25 April 2023‎‎ . . (3,477 bytes)
 * 23:14, 25 April 2023‎ . . (3,225 bytes)  (Added information about the history of Fearing Pond pre-1950)
 * Which means either you were logging in and out to make these joke edits to the article, or you were coordinating with others to disrupt it. Either way, I'm not averse to a second chance, but would like to see an honest explanation of what happened. The block came after you had already made six edits introducing hoaxes to the article and had been warned at least once against doing so, so please focus on your own behavior in the unblock request. DanCherek (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I recognize the two edits by me, but the second edit was not me Gong man 19 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Odd coincidence, that -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * odder still -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These edits don't even look like me. I was posting fake historical events (which I did not know were live) and these are talking about something completely different. At this point, you can either believe me and unban me in which case I either stay true to my word or don't. If I do, then problem solved and if I don't, I will get banned again and nobody in their right mind will reinstate me. Also, I would like to mention that thesecond warning was only 6 minutes after the first one. Once I saw it, I stopped and did not edit anything more than my talk page. I was then subsequently banned with no other action after my second warning. Gong man 19 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)