User talk:Littlejonahhill

December 2020[edit]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Nathan Fielder. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. –DMartin 13:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Nathan Fielder, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use your sandbox instead. Thank you. –DMartin 22:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nathan Fielder, you may be blocked from editing. Felida97 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 00:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Fielder’s education will not be covered up. I am outraged. Littlejonahhill (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 45121[edit]

UTRS appeal #45121 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Littlejonahhill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked and apologize for acting stupidly with my editing. If unblocked I won’t vandalize any pages again nor will I act like an idiot to be funny like I did by repeatedly editing Nathan Fielder’s Wikipedia page. I’d like to another chance to make positive contributions to Wikipedia if possible. Littlejonahhill (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The statement "I might begin contributing to keeping specific sports teams and players stats up to date and shit like that" does not give me confidence that you will take this seriously. You may try to convince someone else to unblock you in another request, I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

What contributions do you wish to make? 331dot (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn’t have anything specific in mind but I thought I might begin contributing to keeping specific sports teams and players stats up to date and shit like that. Littlejonahhill (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks Littlejonahhill (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Unblock Request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Littlejonahhill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked and apologize for acting stupidly with my editing. If unblocked I won’t vandalize any pages again nor will I act like an idiot to be funny like I did by repeatedly editing Nathan Fielder’s Wikipedia page. As I stated before I’d like to make positive contributions to keeping sports teams and players statistics, achievements, etc up to date and accurate but apparently didn’t do a good enough job explaining that during my previous attempt to get unblocked.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I've fixed the formatting that prevented the proper display of your request. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can you tell me about the account P00000000P69420? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 23:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that’s an account my idiot friend made at my house the other day. Not sure what he was planning on doing with it but he made it under my Yahoo email address and I didn’t know about it until I checked my email and saw an email about account creation. Littlejonahhill (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever reviews this request - that account appears to be Technically indistinguishable to this one from a checkuser perspective. There is also an extremely close timing coincidence with this account's logged actions. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 02:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew he made it but didn’t think anything of it. I am not attempting to make an account on the side to do shit and I have not asked anyone to do that for me. Littlejonahhill (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero reason to make another account when I’m trying to get this one unbanned. If you don’t wanna unban me that’s fine but I’m trying to make up for the shit edits I made by positively contributing. I am aware that my friend made me look bad by making an account when we were fucking around online together but if I’m unbanned and pull some shit you’d easily be able to block me permanently. Littlejonahhill (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Littlejonahhill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand my disruptive editing was unnecessary and I did it for stupid laughs. Banning me was necessary, I totally understand that, but I’ve really come to want to make useful edits to Wikipedia pages. I’d really like to make positive contributions to different baseball pages, as well as other sports teams and players. I’ve been blocked for quite some time and I really have come to the conclusion that my disruptive edits were childish and I will no longer do that if unblocked.

Decline reason:

Given your history of abuse, your best bet is to go at least 6 months without any edits and without any block evasion. Based on what I can see, that'd be 2022-01-11. At that point, you can apply under WP:SO. I strongly suggest you consider suggesting a specific, constructive edit you would plan to make at that time. Yamla (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

New Unblock Request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Littlejonahhill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand my editing was childish, unnecessary, and disruptive. I also understand I didn’t do myself any favors by allowing my friend try to attempt bypass the IP block from my Wi-Fi months ago. I want to have the opportunity to make useful edits pertaining to baseball, entertainment, and other related pages. I’ve also been researching lots of political history lately so I could also make positive contributions to some pages in that field as well!! My edits will no longer be disruptive nor will they be incorrect or childish. I’ve gone more than 6 months without any attempt to circumvent my ban and I don’t intend on making bad edits any longer. Thank you for your consideration.

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you on the basis this is your last chance. Following Alexf's comments below, I will monitor your edits, and reblock you if you disrupt the project. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf: - what are your thoughts about an unblock? Checkuser does not show any sockpuppetry. The unblock request seems reasonable. I was thinking of giving them a last chance. PhilKnight (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted the above note, I noticed Alexf is out of town now until 26 April. If he does not respond after a few days, and no-one else disagrees, I will unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I am not so inclined to unblock. Every single request is answered childishly, using words like shit and giving the typical Not Me explanation. As i am leaving on a plane in a couple hours I do not have the time to study the case and the user's posting history, so use your discretion. I will not oppose, but user should be whatchlisted for a while. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Scherzer[edit]

Your edit to Max Scherzer was unsourced. I have added a source, but in future, could you make sure you source your edits? PhilKnight (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah absolutely. I’m sorry about that. Littlejonahhill (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]