User talk:ItsAName123456

December 2014
Hello, I'm Matiia. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Matiia (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at First Church of Windsor with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Matiia (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ape, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Ape was changed by ItsAName123456 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.966883 on 2014-12-31T22:07:52+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm generally inclined to give users who were blocked a long time ago another chance. In examining your edits, none of them were constructive, and some were extremely offensive. Please describe the contributions you want to make(such as what articles or topic areas) and provide some circumstances as to the reason for your prior conduct. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that some indication of what edits you would like to make in future would be helpful, but it seems to me that being younger and more immature than now explains the "circumstances as to the reason for your prior conduct". Frankly, if Wikipedia had been around when I was in my early teens I would almost certainly have done some stupid editing, and five years later I would have seen how stupid it was, and would not have done the same again. After so long I am perfectly willing to unblock, but since not everyone is as ready to give second chances as I am, please do make suggestions as to what editing you think you would like to do. (The blocking administrator,, may have an opinion to express, but for a block five years ago quite likely not.) JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly see your point, but I've seen varied reasons for such edits; if it is just a matter of them having been immature in school, or if it's a matter of prejudiced views against a group(just as examples). It would just be helpful to me, but I am inclined to give them another chance. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing this so quickly, first of all I would like to assure you that my edits were not due to any prejudice, they were 5 years ago so I was about 12 or 13 when writing them so I was most likely just mucking around with some of my friends. The areas I would like to start editing/creating pages for are mostly technology and British history. Thanks!