2 Lit 2 Late

LMFAOimsuchamessluvx, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LMFAOimsuchamessluvx! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. N.J.A. | talk 01:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I please be unblocked?

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

iambacknimbetter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I love to keep people informed. I joined Wikipedia because of my desire to edit blocked pages because I truly want to share my knowledge with others and help Wikipedia

Accept reason:

I am now convinced, for a combination of reasons, that the trolling was not from you. (I was always doubtful that it was, which is why I asked if you could explain it, rather than just declining the unblock request.) I shall therefore go ahead with the renaming and unblocking. However, do be more careful in future not to give other editors a negative impression. Also, I suggest that you look at the policy on edit-warring before you do any more editing. (See my comments below.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

LMFAOimsuchamessluvx (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You have three open requests, you only need one. Please remove two of them. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the relevant editing history, I decided that, since the blocking administrator gave your user name as the only reason for the block, I would change your account's name and unblock the account. I was also going to give you a warning that your editing history and your edit summaries did not give the impression that you were here to collaborate constructively, so that any continuation of the same kinds of problems might lead to another block. However, when I came back to this page to do that, I saw this edit, which made me have doubts. Can you explain that edit? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(JamesBWatson) hi thank you for taking the time to consider my unblock request. Which edit are you talking about? I did three edits asking to be unblocked because I thought it would be an automatic thing. But I guess I was wrong, the other requests were close automatically. But back to the subject, yes I admit that my edit summaries may not give you the impression that I'm here constructively but I truly am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMFAOimsuchamessluvx (talk • contribs)

So, let me be clear. You made this edit because you thought that would lead to you being unblocked. Wow. This is deeply disturbing. This is more than sufficient grounds to leave you blocked indefinitely. This is worse than vandalism, you believed it was appropriate to compromise Wikipedia. Why on earth should we ever trust you after that?!? --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yamla and James Batson what edit are talking about? The edit where somebody says that they have unblocked me? Well, I just noticed it after you pointed it out. Please understand that it wasn't me. It came from : Anonymous user 182.1.101.34.

Excuse me for any inconvenience or confusion that this may had led to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMFAOimsuchamessluvx (talk • contribs)

LMFAOimsuchamessluvx, do you consent to an administrator with WP:CHECKUSER access, investigating your claim? You are not obligated to do so. If you consent, this would reveal whether or not that IP address was used by you. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yamla yes I consent please do check to see if it was me because I know that it wasn't me. It's so frustrating and daunting to be called a liar and accused for something that I haven't done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMFAOimsuchamessluvx (talk • contribs)

{{Checkuser needed}} Someone from 182.1.101.34 made a fraudulent unblock request, here. LMFAOimsuchamessluvx claims this wasn't them. They consent to you posting whether or not it was them making this unblock request. I have already determined the IP is not a proxy. Alternatively, perhaps you could answer whether or not checkuser shows any reason to decline the unblock request for any reason; I believe that may be less specific. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Compare [1] and Special:Undelete/User talk:YamaguchiSaranida. Probably not this user, but something suspicious is going on. MER-C 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Declined - it is forbidden by local policy for Checkusers to reveal an account's IP address, even if the account requests it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

However, based on experience and behaviour, the IP is more likely one of the SPI impersonation trolls. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

However however, compare LMFAOimsuchamessluvx with 162.12.217.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Or just take a run through the history on Khalid (singer). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

yamla it's not me!

• @Yamla and JamesBWatson: I said a lot of stuff here so let me summarize:
  • 162.12.217.34 and LMFAOimsuchamessluvx are probably the same user. In an SPI I would call it certain but I would point out that their edits do not overlap.
  • All of the other accounts and IPs mentioned here are one (or several) of the SPI impersonation trolls (see MER-C's links).
  • The two groups are not related.

Please proceed as you see fit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ivanvector. In fact, I had already come to exactly the same conclusions as you about all of that. I don't see the connection between 162.12.217.34 and LMFAOimsuchamessluvx as in any way problematic at all: as you say, there is no overlap, there is no attempt to deny the connection (in fact the edit summaries effectively declare it) and there is nothing to stop a former IP editor from opening to an account to edit from. Also pinging Yamla in case he is interested. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have renamed your account from "LMFAOimsuchamessluvx" to "Iambacknimbetter" and unblocked it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Email

Stop emailing me, please. Anything you wish to discuss, you can post here. As to what's going to happen now, you'll have to wait until someone with the right access decides whether to act on the above request or not. We'll then evaluate your unblock request. This may take some time, though. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yamla sorry if my emails are bothering you, but I simply don't know if you get my message on here. I want to know what's going to happen please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iambacknimbetter (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Madonna (entertainer), you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Nicki Minaj. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I'd like to say that several messages on my pages were left threatening to block me from editing. I'd like to say at first that it's not fair in any way to threaten people like this. Secondly I'd like to say that I deleted the part where she claimed to be bisexual as I felt like this information didn't deserve its place in the personal life section but in the controversy section since she made the comments in public. Her lying about her sexuality has little to do with her personal life.

With these types of threats, it actually frighten new editors like me from editing. Do not act surprised if everyone stops joining Wikipedia to edit at this point.

secondly, I'd like to address the Madonna genre situation. Again, to start, I would like to state and point out that there was no actual need to threaten me with blocking. For your information, I had an actual conversation with another editor in the edits summary (you would've known if you had checked) about the genres of Madonna, the other editor had taken few of my edits, then I added disco as one of her genres but took it off as it was a subgenre of dance music which was already included in the article so I reverted my edit to rock music. I didn't do any disruptive editing. That's where you're wrong. And yes I do take it as a personal offense.

Iambacknimbetter (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yours truly .

Ariana Grande

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ariana Grande. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fan4Life (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NJOMZA

Hello Iambacknimbetter,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged NJOMZA for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Iambacknimbetter! You created a thread called I think someone abuses their power. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Khalid (singer). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:

Well,all I did was to add facts. I didn't even put unsourced info. Khalid is in fact a singer-songwriter so I recommend you to educate your @#^___ on the subject before running your mouth and have the balls to write this on my talk page.

That's a shame that a confirmed user is being so loud, wrong and lost. Re-evaluate your presence on here mama Iambacknimbetter (talk) Iambacknimbetter.

Welcome Iambacknimbetter!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,308,185 registered editors!

Hello Iambacknimbetter. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blackbear (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Warning: Disruptive Editing

 Warning Some of your recent editing has been disruptive. In particular your recent edits on Talk:Manic (album) were unacceptable. Do not add unsourced controversial claims to articles. And do not harass or otherwise abuse other editors. If this needs to be addressed again it is unlikely to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblock me : a thread of why you should unblock me.

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).

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First of all let me say that I'm not TROLLING as it was issued in the reasons why I was blocked from editing, my sincere apologies if this was the impression given. Secondly, well, this is my second time being blocked, it just shows that Wikipedia still have taboo subjects as I can see but that's the point here, I've been accused of having an username related to "block evasion" which is not TRUE. The meaning of my username is that I've been blocked for sure that I've been unblocked and that I was ready to do better. No reference to block evasion, I'm even willing to change it if you want. That's already two mistakes and misunderstanding. Three, disruptive editing? I didn't even know the article had sources calling it a "single" so I switched it to promotional single instead why was a mistake so I did in fact apologize for that but things escalated quickly between me and a fellow editor @Billiekhalidfan:, I did say things that were inappropriate and insulted them, I have to admit that I was wrong there. I was even planning on apologizing on their talk page but i had been blocked before I could even talk See @Ad Orientem: 's talk page to check it out. I was unable to apologize. And then, I've been accused of not being here to build an encyclopedia... Where did you guys got this from? I've done and said things that were inappropriate for sure but never did I ever been on Wikipedia only to be disrespectful, NEVER. Every thing I do has a reason and a meaning which creating a Wikipedia account is apart as well, with that being said I'm the creator of a LOT of Wikipedia articles and edits such as Njomza which I created by myself, then I reshaped the Khalid entirely by myself and much more. That's for sure : I'm not there for no reasons. In short, I'm ready to acknowledge my mistakes and move on. I apologize if anyone's feelings were hurt or anything of that sort. Iambacknimbetter (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Iambacknimbetter, a blocked Wikipedia user with no filters.

Decline reason:

The tone of the responses to Ad Orientem, below, would be more than enough on their own to convince me that you're not here for the good of the project; combined with your other interactions with them and other editors, this block seems more than justified. Maybe you are trolling, maybe you genuinely lack the ability to interact with other people in a collaborative manner, but either way, Wikipedia is not a good fit for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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 am WP:INVOLVED so another admin will make the determination on this block appeal. I'm uncertain about deliberate trolling but this editor has been a source of drama since they arrived. Their editing history suggests a combative personality ill suited to a collaborative project coupled with a serious lack of comprehension with respect to our WP:PAG. Whether this is a case of WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR, or maybe a bit of both, this editor is a net negative. Meaning well only gets you so far. I endorse the block and for the record was about an inch from blocking them myself when Cullen stepped in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:

So it's like that, Johnny?

"combative"? I'm honestly disappointed especially after I emailed you my plan to apologize and much more. Disappointed but of course not surprised.

For the record, I emailed Ad Orientem telling him that I was planning on apologizing and moving on. People never have the same energy when they're face to face with people.

@Ad Orientem: it's honestly not to be rude but I honestly think you're an hypocrite.

Please don't take it as an insult it's just me giving my opinion on your personality just as same you were giving yours on mine. No personal offense or attack.

Iambacknimbetter (talk) Iambacknimbetter

• Also from that email... Let me let you know that I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia (I'm not going to lie and play the vict, I deserved it pretty much.)

Moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:

Johnny, what is this behavior?

When did I victimized myself? Because I'm surely not the victime here.

There you go, I think it was forbidden to disclose a personal email I've sent to you. I don't think it is in cahoots with Wikipedia's guidelines... Plus I've sent this email to let you that I was apologizing to you and to prove that I have respect for you... I don't see anything wrong with this email so why post it? I mean you're old enough to be my grandfather, I don't even think that there's a reason for behaving like this, Johnny.

Why don't you post the part where I said that I wanted to apologize? Because you want to make me seem the one in wrong here.

I never victimized myself, I just stated that you were talking about how you didn't want to block me and how uncertain you were but now that your fellow editors have joined the problem, you decided to stir the pot by saying you actually endorse the block... Sir, what the actual hell is that?

And I asked you not to take personal offense on what I said and you did take personal offense to the point where you had to ridicule and lower yourself to posting a personal email I sent you. You're losing every ounce of credibility you had... Time to reflect on the things you do.

Anyways, I'm not going to argue back and forth with you, I'm just hoping to be unblocked and move on. Iambacknimbetter (talk) Iambacknimbetter

Another request.

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

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi. I'm actually posting this message again to ask to be unblocked after careful reflection and research, I've finally came to realization that I was the one in wrong throughout all this situation. I've educated myself on the blocking policy and found out that it wasn't intended as a punishment but rather a way to prevent me from doing wrong things.

I do want to show that I am here to create an encyclopedia and contribute to the project, in short, yes I've made several derogatory comments and I do apologize from the bottom of my messy little heart!

Secondly, I've seen that some administrator think that I'm not there to to build an encyclopedia but rather to use it as a social networking site, let me just say that I never knew we couldn't be "friendly" (in the meaning of being networking just like on Twitter or Instagram, etc. ) by the way of edits summaries, so I do apologize and actually ACKNOWLEDGE my fault. Aside from my wrong doings on here, I'm also the creator of certain articles such as Njomza and I plan to do much more for music artists. I also reshaped the entire Khalid article and once again I plan to do much more for the project. I'm still a "newbie" here after all.

Thirdly, I've been told that my username was related to "block evasion" which is not the case, my username means that I've been blocked and that I was ready to be better at editing. So if you think I should change it then please, let me know, that'd be awesome.

And finally, what I said on here to certain people could be seen as disrespectful and I acknowledge that. If I get unblocked I'll of course apologize to those users as it was already in my plans before the block.

To conclude, I've given a lot of reasons on why I should be unblocked. I'm aware that what I've done doesn't give Wikipedia a great look and I apologize. I'm ready to move foward it and show to those who have blocked me that I can do better.

Thanks for even considering my message.

Regards,

Iambacknimbetter (talk) Iambacknimbetter.

Accept reason:

See below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Iambacknimbetter, in your short time here you've established yourself as someone who is disruptive on purpose and lashes out with personal attacks any time anyone says anything to you. This is a collaborative project, which means you have to work with other people and be respectful. There is no other way to participate. Before I will consider unblocking you, I need you to take Ad Orientem's generous advice and read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I mean really read them like you're studying for a test. Then, please answer these questions in your own words:
  1. What is a personal attack?
  2. Why is respect for others important when working on a group project?
  3. If a complete stranger who you don't know at all, not even what they look like, started sending you messages like "you sound like someone I'd bully for no reason" and "get your ass out of my face", would you consider them "friendly?" How would you feel about having to work with that person on a school project?

Feel free to take your time and really think about your responses, I probably won't be checking back in on this today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:

A personal attack on wikipedia's term is when you purposely make derogatory comments targeting someone based on multiple factors such as their race, sexuality or gender. They're deemed as abusive. It is also when you use someone else's affiliation such as religion or community as a way to discredit their opinions or point of view. It is also when you compare other editors to nazis, dictators or any other type of word associated with political representatives that relates to oppressive power. Personal attacks also turns around making comments and outing other editors such as giving their names, address as a way to offense them and make accusation on their personal behavior without any proofs to support those claims.

Being respectful to the other Wikipedia editors is important if not vital to the well-being of the Wikipedia community in order to avoid making personal attacks (well, I failed on this level), to work in a proper space of civility. Beside these reasons, being respectful between collaborators helps the relationship and image of the project. And also to solve disagreements on the project without being harsh and hurt feelings.

I must admit that what I said was wrong and immaturely inappropriate, I cannot pretend that it is not. Saying such things definitely don't reflect who I truly I am, I simply just let my feelings overwhelm me to the point where I had to make personal offenses. I reacted to the situation that way because I felt attacked as well, and of course I'm not trying to find excuses for my behavior. I simply cannot front it. To answer your question : I wouldn't consider myself friendly. Not in this situation. And having to work PEACEFULLY with somebody like this on a school project would be totally impossible, so I concur, I wasn't friendly.

I'm aware that editing Wikipedia alongside multiple other editors should be just as same as working with fellow classmates on a school project.

I sincerely and deeply apologize and can even assure you that this won't happen again.

Iambacknimbetter (talk) Iambacknimbetter.

• I have accepted your request based on your thoughtful response, and will unblock your account momentarily.

I'd like to suggest you also have a look at WP:AGF, WP:COOL, WP:NOX, or really any of the essays on civility. It's been mentioned a few times already but your username does give the impression that this is not your first account. I don't think that's the case and I'm going to make a note of it in your block log, but if you would like to choose a different username, start here. I'm not making it a requirement, it's just something you can do if you want to. In my experience some editors will see your username and conclude you're evading a block before they even try to talk to you; that's their problem but ultimately it hurts you.

Please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), and you don't need to type anything after the tildes. Four tildes adds your account name, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp of your post. From your signatures here I think you're using three tildes. You can customize the look of your signature by clicking on Preferences at the top of any page, but note the guidelines at WP:SIGNATURE.

One last final (I hope) word: please read WP:ROPE. You're off to a rough start but I'm taking it as a good sign that you answered my request with a thoughtful response. But if you break the rules and get yourself blocked again, I can pretty much guarantee that no administrator in their right mind is going to even consider your next unblock request.

Please ask questions if you have them: you can post at the help desk or use the {{help me}} and {{admin help}} templates on your talk page (see links for instructions). Best wishes. (@Ad Orientem, Yamla, JBW, and Cullen328: FYI) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

In future, discuss changes

In future, you will need to discuss contentious changes like this. While we have sources saying Over It is her debut album now, even if you personally don't see a need to discuss an issue in future, does not mean it should not be discussed. If there's a hidden note on the page, in most cases you should heed it. Thank you. Ss112 14:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Hi.

I'm sorry if it kind of violated wikipedia's guideline but hey, she classified "Overt it" as her debut and not "Last Day Of Summer" so I THOUGHT there was no need to discuss it and to mention : yeah, I thought about discussing it on the talk page but I noticed that it was a bit "dead" meaning no one was checking on it, so I thought once again that no one would see it.

My action were based on reflection and was not to disrupt edit.

And can we write on the talk page and still do the edit when no one is responding?

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If it's contentious, it's best to open a discussion on the talk page and leave the article alone for the time being. Also, I see you added a genre to Over It (album), but the source you cited is an Ohio student newspaper. We don't consider student newspapers reliable sources on Wikipedia. I have no doubt the album is R&B, but we need a better source than a student writing for a university's publication for credit saying so. Ss112 18:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112:

Seriously? A student newspaper? Oh lord, that's.... Embarrassing :/ For both, me and Wikipedia... I'm feeling so bad about it. I'm so sorry! I'll do better next time. I didn't really read the website link, I just liked the content 😕. I'm sorry once again.

By the way, I see that you specialize in charts, I might need your help with this music article I'm trying to finish... It's still a draft to this day lol. Please help me out whenever you have the time. Thanks!

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to 7 Rings, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billiekhalidfan: omg don't tell me that you're about to leave these types of messages on people's talk page too, I -

And I talked about it on the talk page as well. I was merely confused... Very confused and still is.

October 2019

 Warning I am no longer asking. If you want to take this to the next level... WP:ANI is that way. Otherwise move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC

@Ad Orientem:

Hum, I don't want to whine, I'm not a whiner but what I surely want is some explanation.

I mean, you've been contemplating the Deana from very close and I think you've seen that something wrong was going on. I don't know if you've noticed but it all started calmly when I asked explaination about a linking error that was made on the other editor's side and I got attacked. Simple as that for no reasons. And what upsets me is that last time I did the same thing with the same editor you are the one who warned me, I have to agree on that but right now, I'm the one who got attacked and you didn't do anything to warn the other editor. Instead you decided to warn me when I wasn't the one fighting.

Why is it like that? Why don't they receive the same treatment as me? I am the only one who got a warning and not then. This is just unfair.

Why do I get warned over something when I'm not even the one in the wrong? Why don't we both have equal treatment?

I just want some answers on why am I treated differently from them?

At this point, I might just use WP:ANI against both of you. Seriously.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The above warning was a specific response to this edit. Which was in turn posted immediately after I directed you and Billiekhalidfan to drop the stick. It was clear as a bell that the discussion had devolved into a pissing contest and that nothing productive was going to come of it. Billiekhalidfan abided by my message and you thumbed your nose at it. If you want to pursue this further; ANI is open. But I feel obliged to caution you that in my experience it is not a place known for happy endings. In particular I would read WP:BOOMERANG carefully. You have been blocked twice in a relatively short period of time and IMHO were rather fortunate to have been unblocked the second time around. If you are blocked a third time it is highly unlikely you will be unblocked again. To be clear I am not trying to bust on you. This is friendly (really) advice. I've been around here for a while and been an admin for going on three years and I have a good idea how things work, and don't. Newish editors who have been twice blocked should go to extreme lengths to avoid unnecessary drama. And for the record, Billiekhalidfan was blocked not that long ago for problematic editing as well. By me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:

Ok, you've blocked them from editing for problematic editing but this is not the subject. I'm simply asking why didn't they get a warning as well and why am I the only one. And do you really think they abided your request to drop the stick? Then why did this happen? Because I couldn't stop "ranting"? When I was just defending myself about from how he said that I'll create a editing war again when he's the one who started it all? From the begging. Seriously, we've been fighting for over two months and they're the one who started it all but anyways.

I'll just avoid the drama the best I can. The only time you'll hear from me soon again is when you'll hear how great I am! Thanks for your "friendly" advice!!

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Your recent editing history at Free Spirit (Khalid album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billiekhalidfan:

Literally, dude, it's time to stop it. You knew exactly what you've done and now you're pretending 5o be all clean and innocent. The editing revert you've done on my edits just show that you've done it on contentious purposes. You've said that I didn't give ab explanation, I agree. I was about to add a source to the article but I forgot because, hey, guess what? I have a whole life out of there. My apologies your highness majesty for having a life. Stop saying that I'm engaging in a editing war when you're the only one rushing to undo people's stuff like a whole crackhead who just realized that they were forced to rehab and then pretend to somewhat be the victim. I'm not going back and forth with you and with all due disrespect sur, I'm not taking you seriously, especially this message when yourself has forced THREE pagesin full protection with your disruptive editing. What I'm saying is that you should drop the stick. Knock it off. Stop what you're doing with me all the time. Wikipedia is no place for happy ending and trust me you'll know about it a lil' better soon if you keep going like that. I'm not going back and forth with you. I've already told you everything you needed to know and I'm surely not doing this anytime soon with you again. Find something else to spend your time else than harassing me for no reasons. BetterOfThatWay (talk)

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been blocked unfairly

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).

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello everyone.

This is my third time being blocked (that says a lot) and I think this time, it was done unfairly. It all started when I followed someone advice to take my current problem to WP:ANI to raise a discussion about my current situation. I did. And it didn't happen the way I wanted it to happen. I expected an administrator to open the discussion and try to solve the problem by both talking to us and making sure we could get along but instead, I was told that I was the one to blame and well, although that I disagree, I tried my best to move on but I kept going, replying to every little reply from other administrators and I've been called a pest. Just giving the context.

I was then told that I should drop the stick and stop replying to people on the WP:Ani thread. I was already looking forward to keep contributing when I was blocked for "not being here to build an encyclopedia" after carefully reading the essays on the subject, I can affirm that I'm being blocked unfairly :

• I didn't take Wikipedia for a battleground, I've already done this mistake. What I wanted to do was to solve my problem with the other editor in question. It came from the depths of my heart. I didn't soapbox or any disputes of mine escalated to the point where I have been uncivil toward anyone. That's a whole reach. The only point where I have failed is when I have been pretty aggressive but hey, that's a bit of my character. Definitely not intended add fuel to the actual fire.
• I didn't take Wikipedia for a social media by chatting or anything of that sort.
• Nor did I ever been disruptive on purpose or violated the three revert-rule. I didn't because I knew the consequences of it.
• Never tried to score brownie points out of Wikipedia by changing anyone's name or anything of that sort.

I know my rights as a Wikipedia editor and I'm sure that they have violated. More than once.

To fix this issue about whether I'm here to build an encyclopedia or not : Yes. Not to mention that I'm the sole creator of a couple of articles such as Njomza or Garden (Say It Like Dat) besides the aggressive outbursts of mine.

• To say that I've taken Wikipedia as a battleground is a far too much and unfair when the only thing I wanted to do was to solve the problem. I wanted my conflict with another person on here to be over. This is all asked for. I never meant to start a war or be disrespectful. I've been advised that I should raise an "WP:ANI" discussion of I wanted to take it further and this is what I've did.

In short, although I've been blocked three times, let me let you know that, I'm aware that I might never ever be unblocked. That's fine, it's that's what you want, I won't complain. But I think it's unfair as I only tried to fix a problem following wikipedia's guidelines and recommendations. And that I've created solely and edited tons of articles. BetterOfThatWay (talk) ~~~~

Decline reason:

I've read through this talk page, the ANI discussion, and your recent contributions, and I disagree with the title of this thread. Your BATTLEGROUND mentality is at odds with the collaborative nature of this project, and I would have to see some sort of commitment from you on how you are going to behave going forward before I could support this. – bradv🍁 03:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

.

Oppose unblock for now until BetterOfThatWay can demonstrate the understanding of the proper bold, revert, discuss cycle policy, understands the applicable area(s) of the Wikipedia Manual of Style with respect to how we tag certain music albums with a genre and what a see also reference (i.e., Rap music) is, and agrees to not use WP:ANI as the venue of first choice in future editorial disputes. WP:RFC, WP:PEERREVIEW, and/or WP:DR should be engaged first. His or her response does not address the reason(s) for the block. Thus, I support the indefinite, which is not permanent, block by admin Drmies. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking part in my request. @Dmehus:

I now fully understand the bold, revert, discuss cycle which consist in making an edit which is the bold part, then if it gets reverted, we shouldn't revert it as well, we should rather use the talk page. I didn't do it as I had no idea that the "bold, revert, discuss cycle" existed since it is not included in Wikipedia guidelines. I had no idea the BRD cycle existed. For my further edit, I plan to use it if I ever get unblocked one day. Also, I understand the problem with music genres, I got it.

• Please note that I didn't use WP:ANI as my first choice to solve the actual problem. I've used the talk page a undred of times and it went nowhere, I was ADVISED, I repeat Adsived to use WP:ANI to take it further by an experienced editor/administrator, I won't mention their name as I'm sure that they want to be left out of it. I decided to use it but it didn't turn out well.BetterOfThatWay (talk)
• Oppose unblock I have had dealing with this editor in the past so I am not going to rule on their unblock request. That said, I am going to repeat what I said back on October 4th when they were asking to be unblocked the last time... this editor has been a source of drama since they arrived. Their editing history suggests a combative personality ill suited to a collaborative project coupled with a serious lack of comprehension with respect to our WP:PAG. Whether this is a case of WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR, or maybe a bit of both, this editor is a net negative. Meaning well only gets you so far. Once again I endorse their being indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:

Excuse me sir, but all of this is happening only because you advised me to do this. Please, instead of bashing me, acknowledge that you're the source of my third block and I can prove it I've done nothing but to follow your instructions. Therefore, I believe that there might have been a misunderstanding and that you are as guilty as I am. It's way too easy to blame people instead of holding accountable. Figure this ish out. I'm blocked only because I did what you told me to. It's not fair to get me blocked and leave you out of it. You're being loud for no reasons stating that I'm combative? When everything is happening because of YOU? 💀 Please tell me, that it's a joke, please. What I've tried to do just flew over your head? I came on WP:ANI to fix a problem and you literally blinked and forgot about it? Please answer my questions.

BetterOfThatWay (talk)

What you neglected to mention was my specific warning against going to ANI here. Yes, I pointed that out as an option and also warned you that it was not likely to end well. I stand by my oppose to your unblock request. You have been a source of endless drama since your arrival and we don't need that. Please find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Not knowing the whole history, I've seen enough to concur with Ad Orientem's assessment, BetterOfThatWay. Until you can demonstrate that you understand the core reasons behind the block, you would be well advised to set Wikipedia aside for a few months, at minimum. If at that point, you decide to actually read how to add an RfC to a Talk page to participate in the "discuss" part of WP:BRD and to using WP:PEERREVIEW, where appropriate, and WP:DR, where needed, then I'd support your unblock. But not now.--Doug Mehus (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus:

Exactly, as you said it yourself, you don't know the actual story. Ad Orientem advised me to use WP:ANI if I wanted to take it to the other level and now that I've done it, it's a big problem. How is that fair? Why don't he get equal blame? How am I supposed to demonstrate that I understand if I'm actually blocked BetterOfThatWay (talk)

@Ad Orientem: Please go on WP:ANI and see my thread and you'll understand. What I wanted to do is to fix my problem with Billiekhalidfan as I felt that it was getting out of hands. Instead what I get is a bunch of people calling me a "pest" and skipping what I've been trying to say. What I really wanted is to have peace, work on Wikipedia without having to catch shade or feel attacked. This is all I wanted. Please understand that I'm misunderstood and that the other editors only focused on my previous behaviors. I have been blocked for not being here to edit wikipedia when I didn't violate any 3 revert rules. I'm being blocked unfairly. And what I want to say is that I decided to try to fix the conflict following YOUR advice [2] right there. I didn't attack anyone and I still ended being blocked, therefore, I estimate that your opposition to my unblocking request is out of line. And also you're not in position to tell me anything or order me to "find a new hobby"- you're not my father, my king or anything or that sort. Avoid telling people what to do. Actually that would super nice. I'm definitely not going to find a new hobby because you told me to. Just read yourself again, your anger is showing. BetterOfThatWay (talk)

Unblock request

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).

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, after putting Wikipedia aside for a few days, I'm asking my block request to be reviewed. The reason why behind my request is that, now, after few days of careful and deep reflection, I've finally understood the core reasons behind my block . On my previous request for unblocking, I've stated that I've been unblocked unfairly when I was actually in the wrong :

• I've definitely mistaken Wikipedia with a battleground ; the way I interact with other administrators, editors and user is inappropriate, there's definitely no excuses for my behavior and vowing changes would be helpless. After carefully studying and reviewing WP:BATTLEGROUND, I can definitely affirm that editors are actually expected to interact with respect, stillness and

civility where I've failed several times.

• Also, concerning disputes resolution, I am now aware that Wikipedia is not the place to hold grudges, to fight and not to be mistaken for a battleground, unfortunately instead of trying to discuss my actual conflict with an other contributor, I used WP:ANI instead of Rfc to fix my current problems. Thus, I definitely assure that any of this won't happen anytime soon again, as I assure that I will try my best to avoid drama and conflicts. If I have to solve a conflict, I will rather ask for feedback and/or external input instead of using WP:ANI (Never again), @Dmehus:.

I now fully understand the core reasons behind my block, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, in the past I've already thought that I could make Wikipedia a more "social media-like" place and now I understand that it is not and will never be. I ask my block to be please, reviewed and I always what to let you know that I'm open for any feedbacks on my current situation.

Regards.BetterOfThatWay (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per my "no administrator in their right mind is going to even consider your next unblock request" advice after unblocking you after your last heartfelt appeal, after you were blocked for these same issues not much more than a month ago. Please read Wikipedia:Standard offer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Sadly, you didn't even try to investigate and/or tried to understand what happened, you only jumped on the fact that I've been blocked for the third time and decided to decline the appeal, it was a huge misunderstanding. Sad but true. Translation : I'm not going to fight for an unlock when I know that I've been misunderstood.

Also by reading your user page, you asked that if you made a mistake to let you know, well sir, I think you've made a huge mistake by declining my block. I'm literally giving up. Y'all own Wikipedia at this point 💀BetterOfThatWay (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, after putting Wikipedia aside for a few days, I'm asking my block request to be reviewed. The reason why behind my request is that, now, after few days of careful and deep reflection, I've finally understood the core reasons behind my block . On my previous request for unblocking, I've stated that I've been unblocked unfairly when I was actually in the wrong :

• I've definitely mistaken Wikipedia with a battleground ; the way I interact with other administrators, editors and user is inappropriate, there's definitely no excuses for my behavior and vowing changes would be helpless. After carefully studying and reviewing WP:BATTLEGROUND, I can definitely affirm that editors are actually expected to interact with respect, stillness and

civility where I've failed several times.

• Also, concerning disputes resolution, I am now aware that Wikipedia is not the place to hold grudges, to fight and not to be mistaken for a battleground, unfortunately instead of trying to discuss my actual conflict with an other contributor, I used WP:ANI instead of Rfc to fix my current problems. Thus, I definitely assure that any of this won't happen anytime soon again, as I assure that I will try my best to avoid drama and conflicts. If I have to solve a conflict, I will rather ask for feedback and/or external input instead of using WP:ANI (Never again)

I now fully understand the core reasons behind my block, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, in the past I've already thought that I could make Wikipedia a more "social media-like" place which earned me a block.

I had the misfortune to get my previous unblock request declined due to an administrator not trying to even understand what went wrong and just decided to decline citing that "administrators should be out of their minds to unblock me" due to my previous blocks. Therefore, I'm asking please, my unblock request to be reviewed by the administrators who understood what went wrong.

Plus I've seen few "plea real" about administrators trying to negotiate unblock with blocked users giving them an ultimatum which is to stay away from certain articles for a period of time or stay unblocked, I'm also open to that.

Regards.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were already unblocked with a strong warning. At this point, you need to take the standard offer. The process is very simple: go six months without editing Wikipedia, and we will review your block. Not only will this prove that you can follow instructions, it will give you time to mature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Talk page access restored

I've restored your talk page access so you can make a new unblock request. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for advice on appealing blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for unblocking me but shouldn't you be raising a WP:ANI?

You haven't been unblocked. All I did was re-enable your talk page access. Now you can post a new unblock request here. I can copy the appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard if that's what you'd like. The alternative is that you let admins handle it normally. Like the above unblock requests, an individual admin will respond to the unblock request and accept or decline it. If you appeal at the noticeboard, the community will hold a discussion, which is basically a vote. Non-admins will have an equal say in the unblock, which is the big difference. If you go that route, and the community declines to unblock you, you will have to appeal to the community whenever you make a new appeal. Whatever you decide to do, you'll have to post an unblock request here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request.

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).

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Greetings everyone, I am BetterOfThatWay, a Wikipedia user of a few months. I've recently been blocked Wikipedia over my unacceptable behavior and now I'm asking to be unblocked, if possible. After months of inner and outer reflection I finally understood the reason behind my block : my uncivil behavior. I took Wikipedia as a battleground and disrespected many fellow editors and administrators. Although apologies for standard offers are not mandatory, I would like to fully apologize for my past behavior. Now I am fully aware of the wrongdoings I have done. I have waited six months without sockpupetting or trying to evade my block and I have sincerely meditated on my past behavior and even found myself wondering why I was acting with such animosity especially toward administrators. Note that this was my fourth time being blocked. The reason y I want to be unblocked is that I've spent those past six months observing other Wikipedia editors and their work and it now I know how to behave on wikipedia. I also ask to be unblocked because I'm passionate about keeping Wikipedia updated with correct sources and relevant informations. Therefore, I'd like to be unblocked. I also promise to not engage in any block worthy behavior. Thank you for reading my unblock request. Regards, BetterOfThatWay.

Decline reason:

Confirmed block evasion by IP socking. You've been editing as an IP all along...you may ask for the standard offer in six months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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 edits do you wish to make if unblocked? 331dot (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @331dot:; The edits I would like to make if unblocked are very various, recently I fell on multiple articles with unsourced or unreliable informations and I'd like to fix that. But I'd like to mainly edit pages that concern music and political sciences.

@@Berean Hunter: Yet, you claim that I've IP Socked but I didn't. I've never tried to change my IP adress and don't even know how to do this. During these past sixonthw, whenever I browsed through Wikipedia, I saw that I was able to edit pages WITHOUT changing IP adress and during these past six months, the only times I've edited was to undo vandalism just like this [1] The IP adress change is probably due to my network operator and I've recently moved to another place since my edits have displayed different IP adress that I wasn't aware of. So that MAY be reason. I've never IP socked. On the standard office page, it is well mentioned that I cannot edit from any ACCOUNT, which I didn't. Thus, I encourage you to reconsider your refusal.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterOfThatWay (talk • contribs) 

You are literally admitting to IP socking, here. That is a clear violation of WP:EVADE. Blocks are against the person. While this account was blocked, you are not allowed to edit. It doesn't matter if it is reverting vandalism or anything else. You are not allowed to edit. --Yamla (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Well, I wasn't admiting but if only you had let me explain myself before jumping to conclusions, maybe you wouldn't have been misled,sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterOfThatWay (talk • contribs)

You misunderstand. The problem is that you edited while not signed in to this account. That's what "IP socking" means. You admitted doing this. --Yamla (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You say, "I cannot edit from any ACCOUNT, which I didn't". You are confused. While this account is blocked, you are not allowed to edit. At all. Ever. You are not allowed to edit if signed in to this account. You are not allowed to edit if not signed in to this account. You are not allowed to edit. Blocks apply to people. --Yamla (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: my situation could've been considered as Blick evasion or sockpupetting if only I had logged out to make problematic edits but in that case it was only to undo vandalism edit, but that's whatever. Again, I didn't change my IP adress since I don't even know how to do it and in that standard offer page, it wasn't mentioned that I couldn't edit as an IP adress and the only time and I only edited ONCE for the sake of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterOfThatWay (talk • contribs)

Well, now you know. What you did was a clear violation of WP:EVADE. The standard offer will be available to you after six months of zero edits. Assuming you make no further edits, that would be no sooner than 2020-11-15. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Well, thanks for explaining it to me, Kim. Oh, and I'm moving to French Wikipedia, see you in six months, *muah*

Unblock request

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).

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Good evening,

I'm presenting myself in order to be unblocked from Wikipedia after being blocked for more than a year. I've been the subject of multiple conversations concerning Wikipedia rules and I've been blocked in the past. But today, I come to you to tell you that I fully take accountability for my past behavior that resulted in my most recent block. I've been engaging in multiple editing wars with others editors and even disrespected many administrators. I asked to be unblocked in May but administrators found me guilty of IP shocking which I fully take all accountability for. After waiting six months again, I've educated myself in Wikipedia's rules and I vow to now respect them. An admin asked me in May which edits I wished to do if I were to be unblocked and the answer is that I would gladly contribute to adding more reliable sources to multiple articles that I read everyday and in which I find many unreliable sources and inaccurate informations. I'm now fully aware that Wikipedia is not to be taken as a social media site where people just come and disrespect others and turn into a battleground. It took my months to learn my lesson and now I'm fully aware of my mistakes and can assure to you and many administrators that it won't happen again. Note that I also now that asking you to unblock me is not my direct exit to this block. I sincerely apologize to every administrators who I have let down and disappointed with my behavior.

Regards.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)}}.

I note there's no evidence of block evasion as far as I can see. This should significantly count in favour of the unblock request, under WP:SO. However, I am not reviewing the unblock request as it doesn't really address the prior behaviour. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: so what shall I do? Should I rewrite my request and address my prior behavior although it is not mandatory according to the standard offer?

I'm looking forward to an answer BetterOfThatWay (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would advise you to rewrite your unblock request to address your prior behaviour. WP:SO isn't a guarantee of an unblock, it very specifically notes that you must address the behaviour that lead to your block. --Yamla (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: I understand.

@Yamla: I've edited my unblock request with a more straightforward explain, my apologies again. Hoping to hear from you soon. Regards. BetterOfThatWay (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping me. I've already reviewed a previous unblock request so won't be reviewing this one. Another admin will be along eventually to review. --Yamla (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh. I am wrong, I have not reviewed an unblock request from you. I'm still not comfortable reviewing this one, though. Best you try your luck with another admin. --Yamla (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I received your email; this matter will be handled publicly. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: No need to come down at me so harshly. You're refusing to review this unblock request and I respect that but let's, please, not make this of personal matters. Have a good night. BetterOfThatWay (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to rectify my previous comment. I'm not entitled to being unblocked as the standard offer explains. My apologies again. I simply mentioned how I felt as Yamla asked to mention if we ever felt some type of way because of them. My apologies.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that I refused to review it, nor was I trying to be harsh. 331dot (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: I was referring to Yamla and his previous answer to my unblock request. I felt slightly attacked as he refused to review my unblock request as he feels "uncomfortable". My apologies. BetterOfThatWay (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Good evening, I am there (again) after my unblock previous unblock request was left unanswered. To begin with, I would like to deeply apologize to administrators I've offended and bothered, BradV, Yamla, AdOrientem. I fully take accountability for my actions and wish to rebuild the trust that is supposed to be present between administrators and editors. Furthermore, after weeks of reflection on the matter, I now fully understand the reasons behind my block. I mistook Wikipedia as a social media platform and engaged in many editing waring after being warned umpteenth times. I misinterpreted and misspoke. And I fully take accountability for my actions. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration not a battleground. And therefore I also apologize to all editors I've offended. In addition, I've committed IP socking which is fully forbidden by Wikipedia' rules and I also apologize for this and understand the reasons behind this block. I ask today to be unblocked as I truly vow to not repeat the mistakes I've done before. I can assure you that I now know the policies and I am willing to fully respect them. I will not continue the damage I've caused. Instead, I will contribute in the most productive ways to the encyclopedia by making edits based on reliable sources and nothing more. I would definitely like to improve Wikipedia with my contributions and and vow to no longer disappoint you. I please ask, to be unblocked.

Regards BetterOfThatWay (talk)

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Unblock request 2021

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

2 Lit 2 Late (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Good evening, I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for over a year now, after making numerous unsuccessful unblock request I come to you to appeal my block. First and foremost, I would like to fully demonstrate that I'm aware of the reasons behind my block and take full accountability. I have been notorious in the past for engaging in editing wars, taking Wikipedia as a battle ground instead of respectfully collaborating and disrespecting many contributors and administrators alike & therefore I wholeheartedly apologize. I will not use WP:ANI as my first resort to solve editing conflicts as I have done before. I also apologize for my comment "I will go on French Wikipedia kiss" as it came off as if I were evading my block which I did not. Furthermore, I have engaged in IP shocking and refused to take accountability for my actions and now I do. I estimate that the block is no longer necessary as I fully understand my actions and have educated myself. If unblocked, I will definitely show my growth and upbringing by ceasing and never repeating my past behaviors. The types of contributions I would like to make of unblocked will now be maturely discussed and supported by credible sources. Once more, I apologize and hope to have convinced my administrators. Regards BetterOfThatWay (talk) 6:52 pm, 21 April 2021, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−7)

Accept reason:

Accepting per Wikipedia:Standard offer and given that no objections were put in response to this request, which has been open in excess of 7 days. Please don't give us WP:ROPE or make me regret this decision. Please avoid edit wars and abide by the 3 revert rule. Failure to do so will result in a block. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your account has now been unblocked. I just accepted here first so that I had something to permalink to. Please let me know if you have any questions. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LMLY (Jackson Wang song)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on LMLY (Jackson Wang song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: Hello. It was written in the talk page that I would come back to finish the work later. I had cited enough sources to make sure the page was not advertising but a neutral article. Now I cannot reach the page as I'm automatically redirected toward Jackson Wang. Please help me BetterOfThatWay (talk)

Rename from "BetterOfThatWay" to "2 Lit 2 Late"

 Renamer note: Rename from "BetterOfThatWay" to "2 Lit 2 Late" per request --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)