Zoyetu

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manor Property Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of culture. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zoyetu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Topic banned from biographies of living persons

This is to notify that you have been topic banned indefinitely from any edits relating to biographies of living persons, broadly construed, based on the consensus of this community discussion. You may appeal this decision, but it should be filed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure.

This editing restriction has been logged here. Alex Shih^Talk 14:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Alex Shih, further to your notification please could you clarify when exactly I would be able to appeal this decision and whether there are any limitations (such as word limits) on the way in which I do so. Thank you. Zoyetu (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Six months, which is 5 March 2018. I am not aware of any limitations. Alex Shih^Talk 16:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

So just to clarify Alex Shih, if I wished to contribute to a BLP article, or feel that information should be included within an article, how would I go about doing this? Who would I need to contact? Zoyetu (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Best to just not think about it; follow the advice at the arbitration request. Alex Shih^Talk 21:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating your community-imposed topic ban on editing related to BLPs, within hours of its issuance, as a breaching experiment, as you did at Peter Levy (presenter). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  GAB^gab 22:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

BBC Genome

I have restored several edits in which you cited BBC Genome. Please note, though, that Genome is a repository of scans of listings in The Radio Times, and it is the later which should be named as the source; for example like this. Since the RT is undoubtedly a reliable source, such edits are less likely to be reverted on the grounds of being "unreliable". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andy! Zoyetu (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Update Andy, SuperMarioMan has removed your contribution to his talk page regarding the BBC Genome. I have reverted this temporarily, however I am sure that he will attempt to remove it again. Not entirely sure why he feels the need to remove it, as it was quite helpful I thought that you took the time to contact him about this. Zoyetu (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments at arbitration

Please note that I have moved your comment responding to DeltaQuad at your arbitration case requests as a clerk action. Everything you post should go in your own section, even when responding to things in other sections. This is a clerk action and should not be undone without authorisation from myself or an arbitrator. GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, regarding the length of your statement, although the limit is 500 words we do not generally begin to enforce it until 600 words is reached and reasonable requests to extend the length limit are almost always granted; you can request it in a new section at WT:A/R/C. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Your RFAR

Your request for arbitration has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on East Riding College

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web pages http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/humber/3754027.stm, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/3026/2/east_yorkshire_cyc2.pdf, and elsewhere. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Your edits to:

• Hull College
• York College (York)
• The Sheffield College
• Wyke College

Whether public interest or not, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia must be a neutral article about a school. It's purpose is not to bring shame to educational institutions. Any such additions will be removed by the School Project coordinators or any other editor. The fact that such activities may be reported in the press is no business of an encyclopedia. Persistent reinsertion of such content may result in sanctions for the editor. See: WP:WPSCH/AG, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV,and WP:BLPCRIME. In view of your BLP topic ban, please consider this your only warning. Thank you for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

On further examination, your edits to Bishop Burton College appear to be constitute a violation of your topicban.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. So if the information was entirely positive you would have no issue with that? As a 'retired university lecturer' yourself you are not exactly unbiased and your comments merely sound as though you have an axe to grind. This isn't North Korea - we can publish information that the institutions might not want to be publicised but at the same time ensure that any information written is as neutral as possible. There's a difference between writing clearly biased material and writing information about an establishment, whether good or bad, in a neutral way. Also, if the purpose of Wikipedia as you claim is not to write things in the public interest, then we might as well close it down. What is the point of it in that case? I've reverted the edits and suggest you take any concerns to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Zoyetu (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for violations of your topic ban on edits relating to BLPs at Bishop Burton College. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Yunshui ^雲_水 15:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see User:Kudpung has reverted my edits, once again. Are you now going to start a discussion like I suggested? Zoyetu (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am very confused as to the reasons behind my blocking. Firstly, the sentence that Kudpung refers to, which was apparently in violation of my topic ban, was made to an article that is not a BLP. That being said, the sentence in question did reference the principal of the institution, but the information was only added as this person has or did have a great involvement in the institution that the article was about. My edit was not made to cover the person themselves and was only added to benefit the article, which again is not a BLP. I feel that the user is clutching at straws when initiating this blocking and therefore I feel that it should be rescinded. Please also refer to my comments above with regards to the user's reversions to other articles that I have edited.

Decline reason:

Your topic ban is for "any edits relating to biographies of living persons" so that covers all articles which have biographical content. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2017 (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.

• Just to clarify, Zoyetu's topic ban is "from any edits relating to biographies of living persons of any kind, broadly construed" [1] [2] – which this WP:BLPCRIME violation [3], made 6 weeks after the TBan was enacted, and which he recently edit-warred with an administrator to retain [4], is definitely and obviously in violation of. Softlavender (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated violations of your topic ban on BLPs at Bishop Burton College.

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 ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To add, your block ended and you immediately reposted this: [5]. As Softlavender stated above, this was in direct violation of your topic ban. The fact this was done just a few days after the last block ended makes me believe that you still do not understand the reason for your topic ban or block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

They understand perfectly, and the edits were made in defiance of the ban. Add to the blocking reasons: WP:TEND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

February 2022

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).

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

---

Request reason:

To whom it may concern, I wish to request that my account be unblocked for the following reasons: It has been over four years now since my account was blocked indefinitely on the website, and I feel that I have learnt my lesson in the intervening years. First of all, I would like to make the administrators aware that I am on the autistic spectrum and, as such, this made it difficult for me to understand the issues raised at the time. I was not formally diagnosed with the condition until the latter-end of 2017, and having received help for it since then, I now feel that I am in a better position to contribute. Because autistic people, for instance, can sometimes find it hard to understand 'social rules' as well as find it difficult to foresee the consequences of their actions, no doubt this contributed to the problems that arose back in 2017. However, I accept also that many of my edits in 2017, in particular those made to the Peter Levy page, as well as my overall conduct was wholly unacceptable irrespective of my diagnosis, and I now very much regret my actions. Furthermore, I have had considerable time to reflect on the purpose of Wikipedia, as well as what it stands for, and I am now hopeful that I can contribute to the website in a much more positive and meaningful way in the future. While I can only apologise for my behaviour at the time I can assure you that if I were to be unblocked, it would never happen again. Therefore, I would be most grateful if you could consider my request, and I would be more than happy to answer any queries or concerns, should you have any. Zoyetu (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2022 (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. Yamla (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2022 (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.

@331dot: Sorry to bother you, but I am just pinging you regarding my appeal as it has been a week now since posting it, and I have not yet received any sort of a response. I understand that after two weeks appeals which have not received a reply are automatically rejected from the system. I am under the impression that you have some involvement with appeals on Wikipedia and so I just wanted to alert you to my own, which is still outstanding. Many thanks, Zoyetu (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Perhaps you could help me out here? I can't seem to obtain a response from anybody. Zoyetu (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)