User talk:StanDrag05

Removed 'vandalism' - RPDR AS8 English Page.
Hello :)

'Vandalism' is not editorial choices you happen to disagree with.

Thanks! Ausymptote (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It was actually vandalism but ok girl! Act a fool! StanDrag05 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Escape the Night (The Movie)


Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Escape the Night (The Movie), is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CycloneYoris talk! 10:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

has been closed, with an instruction to post any future unblock request here. JBW (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Why i should be unblocked: My account and IP address was banned from edits from me adding the Escape the Night The Movie page, I do not see that as being a fit decision when it could have just been deleted if they didn’t believe the easily found true information. I was just trying to be helpful by adding the page since it will need to be made regardless. I created the page going off of information that we have from the fundraiser by the creator of the Escape the Night and based off the information that he’s confirmed he is making Escape the Night The Movie and it’s set to be released in December 2024, anyone can access the fundraiser and see that it’s been said the movie will be released in December of 2024 and that the goal of $125,000 was met and exceeded. The fundraiser has closed and met the goal which means the movie is happening. StanDrag05 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

unblock reason
Reply: Listen I really didn’t know what I was doing was an issue, I was just trying to help. I’ve made plenty of good edits before and i just thought that this was helpful. I really don’t think I deserve to be blocked indefinitely (maybe blocked for a little bit but I feel like indefinitely is a little too much for a unknowingly mistake)
 * "Indefinite" isn't the same as "infinite". Once you convince us you understand what was wrong with your edits, you may be unblocked. So far, you haven't. --Yamla (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Reason 2.0, After reading the rules of which I broke.

 * Your explanations, at best, show that you have no idea what you're doing. More important, even if you could learn how to edit Wikipedia responsibly, your goal in creating that article was obviously promotional. In fact, your unblock requests continue that promotion. Even in your edits unrelated to the article you are discussing, your history shows that almost all were reverted. There's no good reason to unblock you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you seen what one of the other admins said in my last unblock request? I did what they asked and read through the rules of which I broke and understand why I was blocked. They gave reasons as to why they declined my request and told me how to fix that, and I thank them for that but you said that all of the thought and research (also the fact that I did exactly what I was told to do by an admin) was just nonsense. Please don’t take this as disrespect but I am just honestly speaking about how I feel. I do not even care if the page of the movie exists, that doesn’t matter to me anymore at all, I just want you to understand that I have done exactly what was told to do and put thought and research into my new unblock request. As I said before, have a nice day. StanDrag05 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a note about Stan's comment for the reviewing administrator. When they said that I used the word "nonsense", that's true, but I amended it before Stan's comment to remove it because I thought it was too harsh and unhelpful. Other than that, I stand by my comments, and I did read what was said earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is my reply to Deepfriedokra. The reasons of which my edits caused a block were because there is no public announcement or confirmation that the Escape the Night Movie is happening, and that I did not include any citations to prove that my edit/creation of page for said movie is reliable. If I were to do anything differently I would have waited until there was a public announcement and reliable sources that prove the movie is happening and then include citations of those sources in my edit. As for constructive edits, I love to help update episodes of shows like RPDR or total drama (a lot of times I forgot to log into my account so my edits were from my IP address but if I were to get unblocked I would try to log in before making edits. StanDrag05 (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

New unblock request/reply to DeepFriedOkra

 * I am somewhat puzzled by this block. It is described as being for "persistently making disruptive edits", but no explanation was given as to how or why the edits were considered disruptive. The editor had only ever received two warnings. One of those warnings was for creating a "hoax", but it does not appear to have been a hoax. There is a lack of reliable sourcing, so creating the page was a mistake, but there's a huge amount of writing about the subject in unreliable sources, and I see no reason to doubt that StanDrag05, who at the time of the block had made 42 edits, was acting in perfectly good faith, unaware of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. The other warning had been about misuse of the word "vandalism" to mean something like "editing which I personally think is mistaken". That is a common mistake among new editors, and was not repeated after the warning. The one clearly unacceptable edit was the reply to that warning about the word "vandalism", which was unambiguously uncivil; however, a single uncivil comment of that kind can scarcely be a significant factor in a block, especially a block more than four and a half months later. It is possible that StanDrag05's other editing had good reasons to be regarded as disruptive, but it is not immediately obvious at a glance why, and nobody made any attempt to explain to StanDrag05 what the problems were.
 * In view of the considerations I have described above, I see that there were grounds for giving StanDrag05 some friendly advice, explaining what the problems with their editing were considered to be, and in the solitary case of the talk page post on 16 August 2023, a more stern warning. I don't, however, see grounds for an immediate block without such warnings having been issued. Also, even if the block should be considered to have been valid at the time, the editor has now shown an understanding of the lack of citations to reliable sources as a reason for the article being unsuitable which is the only reason for the block which has been made clear to them, and therefore the only one they can be expected to respond to.
 * Consequently I propose to unblock the editor. However, rather than go ahead unilaterally, I will wait for a short time to see whether any other administrators wish to comment.
 * ,, and may wish to comment. JBW (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. --Yamla (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There were poorly sourced edits, but that seems to be remedied in the unblock request. I hope there will not be a repeat of the WP:incivil and patronizing "act the fool" response. I have no objection to unblocking. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I note the two comments above from the two administrators who declined previous blocks, and the fact that the blocking administrator has made numerous edits, over a period of six hours, since being pinged but has not commented here, suggesting that he does not wish to comment either way on the proposal to unblock. I shall therefore remove the block. JBW (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)