User talk:Hmdwgf

Blocked
 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:. Graham 87 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see this edit summary, where I reverted an edit where you added unsourced and badly sourced content (despite many many warnings about this over several years). Such extreme incompetence is not tolerated on Wikipedia; you are not welcome here. Graham 87 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Conditional unblock
As a condition of your unblocking, you are topic banned from the subject of living persons, broadly construed. You may not edit any page nor discuss any topic which concerns a living person, anywhere on the English Wikipedia, subject to the normal exceptions except I advise you not to depend on the exemption for reverting obvious vandalism to biographies of living persons, as doing so will likely be considered a violation of your ban. As an unblock condition, this sanction expires in one year, or you may appeal earlier to the administrators' noticeboard (see WP:STANDARDOFFER). Violations of this condition will result in your indefinite block being restored, and may result in lengthening the duration of your topic ban or expanding its scope. If you are not sure if an edit might violate this restriction, you are encouraged to ask before attempting the edit, as inadvertent violations will be treated as seriously as deliberate ones. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Fine. OK. Great. Thank you so much. Hmdwgf (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sami Zayn, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  03:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I was about to provide a source before you changed it. Hmdwgf (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you did not take the notice above seriously. You are not permitted to edit biographical articles concerning living persons here on Wikipedia.  General Ization Talk  03:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I forgot about that- really, I did. I'm not sure if an apology or an explanation will do but I guess my time is up here. I've been on the admin's user watchlist since July of last year. Hmdwgf (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ivanvector Adding a ping to the admin so that they can decide, to me it seems very reckless to immediately not just ″forget″ your topic ban but also repeat the same unsourced editing that got you blocked in the first place. TylerBurden (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even though I’ve been topic banned for a year from editing articles on living people, I can at least say I provided a source. Of the few dozen edits I've done since I was unbanned, it’s the only edit I’ve done on a living person. But I don’t think it will get me off the hook. I’m on thin ice already. I thought I could get away with at least one- but clearly not. Hmdwgf (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Ivanvector- I'm probably going to request to be unblocked some time later in the year but even so my contributions will very likely be extremely limited and will pertain to one article. I was hoping you would be lenient, hoping you wouldn't ban me- but you did, and that for me is the final straw. I understand why Wikipedia has to be strict about things like this, but this ban has made me realize that I cannot function in a site this rigidly administered. This site is just too strict, serious and cutthroat for me- and it didn't always used to be that way. I have mental health problems that I have been working on for a while to get straightened out which have been a contributing factor to all the warnings I've had here- 5 years ago I would have been banned a lot sooner, made a hell of a lot more noise about it and tried to get back borderline obsessively.--Hmdwgf (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2023 (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:. I was writing the text below while you were writing your reply above. I have not modified it after reading your response, and I have nothing more to add at this time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You were clearly warned not to edit information about living persons only a month ago. I came here willing to forgive this one instance since you did provide a source, but then I reviewed that source and found that, in fact, your edit to Sami Zayn was not adequately supported by the source you provided, and so I have removed it. That led me to investigate other edits you've made since being conditionally unblocked, and I found edits such as: What has to happen now is that someone, probably many people with many better ways to use their time, are going to have to go through your history and double-check everything you've added for the last 14 years, since you've shown that you cannot be trusted to check sources yourself. You will remain blocked until you show some kind of awareness and understanding of the harm you've done and the time you are going to make everyone else waste fixing it, instead of trying to see "what you can get away with" as you've said a few times on this page. If you think you can do that, please see WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit to Dale Hausner and Samuel Dieteman, one of whom is living.
 * Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace - this series of edits, besides directly concerning living persons named in the article and thus being in direct violation of your ban, you also added grandiose superlatives which do not reflect the views of the existing source at all. And then a few days later you went back for this batch, in which you modified more of the same info, and added an entirely new bit about a living person not previously mentioned although you provided no new sources.
 * You deadnamed Caitlyn Jenner. While the edit is probably correct given that the article is an event from 1986, you still must have known that they are, in fact, a living person.
 * There are also numerous examples in your editing history of you adding what appears to be your own personal opinion or editorial commentary to articles with no attempt to add a source at all. These embellishments are not wanted on Wikipedia; please see No original research and Verifiability, not truth.


 * I was never aware of any of those rules- I thought that I could not specifically edit articles about living people, not information about living people on articles not about living people. I never even knew what "deadnaming" is until now.
 * I know what I did wrong, and I accept it. But to be honest, right now I am so bloody frustrated with this whole thing that in order to do as little damage to my personal pride as possible, what I wrote above is how I will proceed from here. Right now- it's simply impossible for me to care. Right now, I just cannot do any of the things you're recommending I should do to get unbanned. Why? There's nothing I can do to get unbanned right now, and I'm just too annoyed and frustrated to even care. I'm not mad at you personally, so much as I am mad at this website- you did what you had to do. Maybe my feelings about this website will change, maybe not. Only time will tell. My own feelings play a factor for me here. --Hmdwgf (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

 * , FWIW, I found no recent evidence of socking. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think October was recent enough, however we can unblock if you think it would be OK. Thanks&#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Though I guess we should notify . &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Anyone else reviewing this ought scroll up to their previous accepted block appeal from 18 Jan 2023 (permalink) and compare it to this one. And to the October one, for that matter. Then also study the discussion in the February 2023 section right below it, where I documented numerous instances of them violating their conditional unblock over just one month following. And then there's the socking. An unblock request needs to convince the reviewing administrators that the user understands what they did wrong and what they will do differently if unblocked, and a request that is nearly a verbatim copy of the previous successful one is a very long way off. Suffice it to say I am not in favour of unblocking this user at this time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)