User talk:TigerWarz19

Hello, TigerWarz19, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2019 (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:. Materialscientist (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I am confused about how to set out the proposed edit. Should I add it as a new article beneath the unblock request? And should I add the original version first and then edit it? Thank you in advance. TigerWarz19 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)}}
 * Adding the original version and then editing it will make it easy to review what exactly you did. Personally I'd suggest to put it in a separate section or subsection and to request another review of your block when you're done and can point to the edits. Huon (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Edit
The A167 continues through Gateshead across the Tyne Bridge into Newcastle upon Tyne, where it becomes the A167(M) Newcastle Central Motorway for a short distance. After the city centre it reverts to dual carriageway to its terminus at the Kenton Bar A1/A696 junction.

Originally the road was the designated as A1(M), but changes to the route of the A1 have caused changes to the route number. When the A1 was re-routed through the Tyne Tunnel, it was renumbered as the A6127(M) to conform with the rules of the Great Britain road numbering scheme – becoming one of only two four-digit, Axxxx(M) motorways, the other being the A6144(M) motorway. After the construction of the A1 western bypass, the Tyne Tunnel became the A19 and the A6127(M) became the A167(M).

The motorway was one part of a much larger plan, covering Newcastle's City Centre. The section that was built was the Newcastle Central Motorway East, however the un-built sections of the Central Motorway East Bypass and the Central Motorway West were also part of this plan. However, neither of the further motorways were ever fully constructed. Today it is easy to see where they would have connected to the Central Motorway, in the form of unfinished slip roads and a wide underpass at the Great North Road junction, and in Gateshead where the Central Motorway East Bypass would have connected to the Gateshead Highway.

The route of the un-built Central Motorway West was partially cleared out, so with the completion of the new Redheugh Bridge the area was adapted and used for the building of St. James Boulevard.

The A167(M) is unusual in that it has a slip road leading from an unclassified road directly onto the right-hand ("fast") lane at Camden Street; a result of its two-tier construction. However, as of late 2011 this slip road is closed. It also has other junctions where entry to and exit from the motorway is via the outside lane, which can lead to a lot of weaving and conflicting traffic movement. The A167(M) is subject to a 50 mph speed limit throughout.


 * Hi, while "pathetic.org.uk" appears to be a self-published blog and thus not a reliable source, it is understandable that you have chosen it: It is used in the current article as well. It probably shouldn't be, but it would be unfair to hold this against you.
 * , I personally believe that the "second chance" offer is mostly about regaining trust, not proving excellent editing skills. There are numerous tasks in this encyclopedia that require trust, but not necessarily perfect article writing skills. See WP:Task Center for examples. I personally would have been in an almost unsolvable situation if someone had requested me to write an article to get unblocked. That said, I didn't ever use racial insults nor vandalize.
 * Your first appeal admitted the error in a specific diff, but – perhaps you're not aware of the log, or have genuinely forgotten this – there was more: Special:AbuseLog/26158517 is even more disgusting than the edit you have admitted to be an error.
 * I'm inclined to unblock you: You have taken the time to do what appeared to be a requirement for getting unblocked, and you have done so again when someone pointed out a mistake. In your second attempt, you have addressed the mistake of your first attempt, and did manage to fix the problem. That's pretty much all we're looking for: Someone approaches you to inform you about a mistake, you read their message, you understand their message, and you attempt to correct your mistake and are unlikely to make it again in the future. Learning from mistakes is a quality we're looking for – perhaps the most important one in this community, for us all.
 * , I have one single condition for unblocking you: Please take a moment to reflect about Special:AbuseLog/26158517; do not reply within the next 24 hours. When you have done so, and the 24 hours have elapsed, please answer below this message, explaining concisely what has been wrong with this edit. The edit has been problematic in two ways, I'd say, but you're not required to read my mind. I just would like to see that you understand why exactly the attempted edit has been problematic (it was offensive, of course, but why?). You are not required to write a novel; one or two sentences will probably perfectly do. I am already convinced that it probably won't happen again; I just want to make sure that this is not just because Wikipedia forbids it, or just because it could lead to a block.
 * Thank you very much in advance, take your time, and probably welcome back soon, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have to admit I had completely forgotten about that edit and I am personally horrified by my own actions. I totally understand that using that specific word was particularly disgusting, as the word has for many years been used as a racial slur in offence to the entire African-American community, and by me attempting to put that specific word on that specific page which correlates to the African-American community, I have most likely caused severe offence to people within or for that community. I apologise fully for just attempting to use that word. TigerWarz19 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ping
Any objections to an unblock? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. --Yamla (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're so desperate for editors that we need people who think homophobic racism is funny, but do what you will. By the way, you can't ping Materialscientist; you'll have to post to User talk:Materialscientist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tricky. Tricky. I'll unblock because the process would else be a farce. If we have already decided to never unblock them, we shouldn't propose conditions for an unblock. Consent, with caution, from Materialscientist has been obtained at Special:Diff/951712313. Let's see what happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I appear to have been blocked again and I am so confused right now I don't even know what to say, I would prefer if I could just terminate the account than go through this process again, if anyone would be able to help me with that


 * You are currently not directly blocked. Please try to edit the page WP:SANDBOX, then copy the entire error message here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)