User talk:A westman

Please stop adding unnecessary spaces to articles.

Please stop doing things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Survival&diff=prev&oldid=1050140633

You may think it's harmless, but every editor who watches the article will be notified of a change, and it wastes our time making sure it is not vandalism. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ㅤ

Proposed deletion of File:Manitoban Flag.png

The file File:Manitoban Flag.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to c:File:Flag of Manitoba.svg which is a scalable SVG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whpq (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Abortion-rights movements, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Schuylkill, Philadelphia have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Schuylkill, Philadelphia was changed by Thewikipedian7534 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891055 on 2021-12-28T23:29:15+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Yahweh are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused why my edit was removed. I was trying to refute the name "Yahweh", not give personal thoughts.

Could you elaborate? Thewikipedian7534 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in your "refutations". Take them to your own blog. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, U, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at U, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Yahweh for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "generally discussing this" You obviously have not reas what I put. Thewikipedian7534 (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in your opinion that "Yahweh" is a false name. This clearly indicates "Yehowah" the the name of the Judaist and Christian God. This is not a website based upon personal opinions, yours or mine. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lbozo Thewikipedian7534 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "original thought", this is an actual fact I have seen propagated on other websites which I can cite on request. Thewikipedian7534 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would not be in the position you're currently in if you had bothered to include reliable sources; then you might have been contributing to improving the article, rather than just stating your own unsourced opinion on the talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No human knows what God's actual name is, assuming He has one. Yahweh is not God's name, nor is Yehowah nor Jehovah nor other such variants. It was simply God's answer to Moses when he asked what His name is. It means "I am that I am" or just "I am". That was God's polite way of telling Moses that He wasn't going to tell him His name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "I am that I am" is Hebrew idiom for "mind your own business and don't ask my name". tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Yahweh, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Talk:Yahweh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Yahweh and Talk:Yahweh) 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話はなして下ください) 22:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 22:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #74848

is open. @Discospinster: Unblock? Restore TPA? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say no to unblocking. The user had made unconstructive edits before the whole Yahweh thing, hence I do not believe that "anger" was the only reason for their behaviour. And even if it was, the next time the user is upset will they vandalize again? ... discospinster _talk 14:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course not! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #79429 open. ping

is open. Leaning unblock. @Discospinster: Unblock? Restore TPA? Decline? WP:AN? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following UTRS appeal #79429, and having consulted the blocking administrator, I have unblocked your account. I have also renamed your account from "Thewikipedian7534" to "A westman", as you requested at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/112172/view. You should be able to log in with the new username, and the same password as before. JBW (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, A westman. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 17:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 67.226.220.28 (at school, anyway). May [whoever sees this] “soften” my autoblock to only affect anonymous editors on their network so that I may continue contributing? A westman (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed proxy belonging to Amazon. You'll need to disable your proxy. If you have an exceptional need to edit via a proxy, WP:IPBE may be an option for you, but I'll warn you, it's unlikely to be granted. Yamla (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Template:User active edits

There is a Template:User active edits as well as a Template:User all edits that produce the following user boxes:

12,345

This user has made 12,345 edits to the English language Wikipedia.

23,456

This user has made 23,456 edits to all Wikimedia projects.

You can of course adapt the source code to make your own userboxes. You should create a user page for your userbox template. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 17:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Casa de Sante

The article Casa de Sante has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JBW (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A question about other accounts

I see that at Wikipedia:Teahouse you said that you had tried to upload a file using another account. What other accounts apart from this one have you used? JBW (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forget almost all of them. One was "the phonics". G'year ᴛᴀʟᴋ·ᴍᴀɪʟ 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another started with "I like pie", perhaps without spaces or with different capitalization. A westman talk 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sockpuppet and wish to stick to one account. Please block any other accounts I have but do not know of. A westman talk 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Alsu Kurmasheva

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alsu Kurmasheva, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

I have been looking at your editing since I unblocked your account to give you another chance. I am glad to see that there has been no more of the totally unacceptable kinds of editing that occurred before the block. Thank you for that. However, I think I should warn you that there is a danger that you may be blocked again. I strongly recommend avoiding doing things such as creating joky userboxes and putting a large proportion of you editing into userspace pages, at least until you are much better established as an editor, because it risks giving the impression that you are here more to play around than to work for the encyclopaedia. Also some of your editing really doesn't make much sense; for example your proposal to merge sections from numerous articles on very different topics, just because they all refer to some kinds of needles. It is difficult to imagine how you might imagine that would be helpful. Where would you merge them to? Which article would you choose to contain all that information on so many different topics? And why would that be better than each needle being described in the article where it is relevant? I won't claim to know what your intention was, but it is likely to be seen as another example of playing around: "Ooh! I see that there's something called a merge proposal. I must have a go at one of those." Also if you do have good reasons for proposing a merge then you need to say what those reasons are: just posting a template into the articles and then going away and leaving it without giving any explanation is not helpful. Those are just a couple of examples, but the overall message is that you should try to make sure that all of your editing looks as though its purpose is to improve the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a user space page? G'year talk mail 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a page with "User" at the front of its title: in your case User:A westman and User:A westman/vector-2022.css You have made almost as many edits to those two pages as you have to all articles. JBW (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I have actually tried to focus on editing more mainspace pages and I guess this gives me another reason to edit in it more. G'year talk mail 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also your signature is really unhelpful. A signature on a message should make it easy for other editors to see who wrote the message, which yours doesn't. It should make it easy for anyone with a little experience of editing to see where to click to get to the editor's user talk page, and preferably also to their user page; again, your signature doesn't. Please change your signature. (Also, doing things such as making a joky signature may combine with other things such as making flippant edit boxes and "essays" to increase the impression that you are here more to play than anything else.) JBW (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have looked at the current version of you signature, and it does make it clear how to get to your talk page, but the rest is still true. JBW (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it a bit. What more changes should I make? A westman talk e-mail 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for changing it. JBW (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I think you should know that a couple of people have questioned by decsion to change your name, because you are still blocked on Wiktionary, and I shouldn't have accepted your rename request unless you were unblocked everywhere. It is therefore possible that your account may be reverted to its previous username. JBW (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I anticipate this? G'year talk mail 14:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but be aware thatvit may happen. JBW (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not e-mail me again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my only way of reaching you besides this. Was I blocked because WP:NOTHERE or "to remove any doubt that they are not eligible for a WP:Cleanstart"? A westman talk e-mail 20:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How was/am I NOTHERE? A westman talk e-mail 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? If you don't want to be contacted by talk page then how do you expect me to contact you? Read the above, please. A westman talk e-mail 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: You have made if I am not mistaken 48 edits today and you cannot seem to answer this one question. I need the answer for this so that I may actually form a cognizable argument for unblock. Again, How was or am I not here to build an encyclopaedia? In other words, what did I do that got me blocked? I'll stop replying to this now to avoid possibly harassing you. A westman talk e-mail 16:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question already. Is it too difficult for you? Then why was I blocked? Is this ignorance intentional? Do you know of WP:PUNITIVE? @Bbb23: A westman talk e-mail

User page edit request

Remoive the "retired" and "clean start" part of my user page since apparently I couldn't and can't get a WP:CLEANSTART A westman talk e-mail 20:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I directly deleted the content, but tell me if you'd like the formatting or wording changed instead (such as by inserting "This account was created as a clean start") . Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 20:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit. A westman, you cannot request edits to be made by other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but this account is no longer retired. The template is misleading. A westman talk e-mail 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The only thing you should be using this page for is to make an unblock request. If you use it for other reasons, you risk having your access to this page revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. A westman talk e-mail 20:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I forgot about WP:PROXYING. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 20:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

According to the blocking administrator I was blocked because I am "not here to build and encyclopaedia". This sounds ridiculous considering that my edits had not been considered unencyclopaedic (or at least not worthy of blocking) before and the blocking administrator also said that it was "to remove any doubt that they are not eligible for a WP:Cleanstart". Until I know how exactly I am "not here to build an encyclopaedia" I cannot give a better reason to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Well, I could and should decline this request just because by your own admission you can't make a cognizable argument for unblock, but ... since admins use NOTHERE a lot as a catchall when the blockee's conduct doesn't really fit any other category but still is counterproductive to the project.

In your case, looking over your record, it seems like while you might have made an effort to get over your mistakes and learn from them, it has not been enough and our patience has been exhausted. This has to do with your overall conduct, not any particular edit or set of edits. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wanted an answer to the last bit of my appeal from my blocking admin. Also the BA said it was in response to [edit.] A westman talk e-mail

Please do not modify (or remove) declined unblock requests for your currently active block. --Yamla (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I do, in fact, want to build an encyclopaedia, which is why I want to be unblocked. You may see the edits I have made on the Simple English Wikipaedia and Wiktionary. I will say that some, maybe many of them were unconstructive (especially the Casa de Sante article and the needle merger proposal) and that I edited my userpage far too much (see this section for more) and I wasted too much time on userboxes, but I knew these were mistakes when I was blocked and I still think they are mistakes. Moreover, I actively tried to lessen the proportion of userspace edits I had. I also followed and talked back to the warning JBW gave me in that section. If I am unblocked, I wish to keep listening that warning. If you want examples of what edits I wish to make, I wish to say so.
I now know of my mistake in the wording of my cleanstart notice, which said "I wanted to escape this account's disruptive history" or rather about that (You can see it on my userpage). What happened was after reading what had been said about me at JBW's talk page in archive 83, I wanted to cleanstart, and I put a notice on this account's userpage that said I would cleanstart with an undisclosed account, which led to my current block. That account is Mayn't. I admit I worded the notice poorly, and it sounded/sounds as if I wish to split my editing history and evade scrutiny. In a nutshell, all I wanted to do was cleanstart. I do not wish to evade scrutiny and if I try to clean start again I will word it better or disclose the account I wish to cleanstart with to make my editing history more visible and allow scrutiny. I likely won't try to cleanstart again for this section seems to say that they wanted to watch my editing history following the warning, which might be why I was blocked after trying to cleanstart. I don't think the attempted cleanstart is sockpuppetry as I tried to retire this account as I had indicated with {{retired}}. If it is, I did not mean to sockpuppet and wish to review the sockpuppetry rules. If there is another problem with the retired notice please say so: it is on my userpage. A westman talk 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I do, in fact, want to build an encyclopaedia, which is why I want to be unblocked. You may see the edits I have made on the Simple English Wikipaedia and Wiktionary. I will say that some, maybe many of them were unconstructive (especially the Casa de Sante article and the needle merger proposal) and that I edited my userpage far too much (see [[User talk: A westman#Some advice|this section]] for more) and I wasted too much time on userboxes, but I knew these were mistakes when I was blocked and I still think they are mistakes. Moreover, I actively tried to lessen the proportion of userspace edits I had. I also followed and talked back to the warning JBW gave me in that section. If I am unblocked, I wish to keep listening that warning. If you want examples of what edits I wish to make, I wish to say so. <br> I now know of my mistake in the wording of my cleanstart notice, which said "I wanted to escape this account's disruptive history" or rather about that (You can see it on my userpage). What happened was  after reading what had been said about me at JBW's talk page in archive 83, I wanted to cleanstart, and I put a notice on this account's userpage that said I would cleanstart with an undisclosed account, which led to my current block. That account is [[User:Mayn't|Mayn't]]. I admit I worded the notice poorly, and it sounded/sounds as if I wish to split my editing history and evade scrutiny. In a nutshell, all I wanted to do was cleanstart. I do not wish to evade scrutiny and if I try to clean start again I will word it better or disclose the account I wish to cleanstart with to make my editing history more visible and allow scrutiny. I likely won't try to cleanstart again for [[User_talk:JBW/Archive_83#A_westman|this section]] seems to say that they wanted to watch my editing history following the warning, which might be why I was blocked after trying to cleanstart. I don't think the attempted cleanstart is sockpuppetry as I tried to retire this account as I had indicated with {{retired}}. If it is, I did not mean to sockpuppet and wish to review the sockpuppetry rules. If there is another problem with the retired notice please say so: it is on my userpage. <strong     >[[:User:A westman|<span style="color: #e91212; text-decoration: inherit;">A westman</span>]] [[:User talk:A westman|<span style="color: #e91212; text-decoration: inherit;"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">talk</span></span>]]</strong> 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do, in fact, want to build an encyclopaedia, which is why I want to be unblocked. You may see the edits I have made on the Simple English Wikipaedia and Wiktionary. I will say that some, maybe many of them were unconstructive (especially the Casa de Sante article and the needle merger proposal) and that I edited my userpage far too much (see [[User talk: A westman#Some advice|this section]] for more) and I wasted too much time on userboxes, but I knew these were mistakes when I was blocked and I still think they are mistakes. Moreover, I actively tried to lessen the proportion of userspace edits I had. I also followed and talked back to the warning JBW gave me in that section. If I am unblocked, I wish to keep listening that warning. If you want examples of what edits I wish to make, I wish to say so. <br> I now know of my mistake in the wording of my cleanstart notice, which said "I wanted to escape this account's disruptive history" or rather about that (You can see it on my userpage). What happened was  after reading what had been said about me at JBW's talk page in archive 83, I wanted to cleanstart, and I put a notice on this account's userpage that said I would cleanstart with an undisclosed account, which led to my current block. That account is [[User:Mayn't|Mayn't]]. I admit I worded the notice poorly, and it sounded/sounds as if I wish to split my editing history and evade scrutiny. In a nutshell, all I wanted to do was cleanstart. I do not wish to evade scrutiny and if I try to clean start again I will word it better or disclose the account I wish to cleanstart with to make my editing history more visible and allow scrutiny. I likely won't try to cleanstart again for [[User_talk:JBW/Archive_83#A_westman|this section]] seems to say that they wanted to watch my editing history following the warning, which might be why I was blocked after trying to cleanstart. I don't think the attempted cleanstart is sockpuppetry as I tried to retire this account as I had indicated with {{retired}}. If it is, I did not mean to sockpuppet and wish to review the sockpuppetry rules. If there is another problem with the retired notice please say so: it is on my userpage. <strong     >[[:User:A westman|<span style="color: #e91212; text-decoration: inherit;">A westman</span>]] [[:User talk:A westman|<span style="color: #e91212; text-decoration: inherit;"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">talk</span></span>]]</strong> 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do, in fact, want to build an encyclopaedia, which is why I want to be unblocked. You may see the edits I have made on the Simple English Wikipaedia and Wiktionary. I will say that some, maybe many of them were unconstructive (especially the Casa de Sante article and the needle merger proposal) and that I edited my userpage far too much (see [[User talk: A westman#Some advice|this section]] for more) and I wasted too much time on userboxes, but I knew these were mistakes when I was blocked and I still think they are mistakes. Moreover, I actively tried to lessen the proportion of userspace edits I had. I also followed and talked back to the warning JBW gave me in that section. If I am unblocked, I wish to keep listening that warning. If you want examples of what edits I wish to make, I wish to say so. <br> I now know of my mistake in the wording of my cleanstart notice, which said "I wanted to escape this account's disruptive history" or rather about that (You can see it on my userpage). What happened was  after reading what had been said about me at JBW's talk page in archive 83, I wanted to cleanstart, and I put a notice on this account's userpage that said I would cleanstart with an undisclosed account, which led to my current block. That account is [[User:Mayn't|Mayn't]]. I admit I worded the notice poorly, and it sounded/sounds as if I wish to split my editing history and evade scrutiny. In a nutshell, all I wanted to do was cleanstart. I do not wish to evade scrutiny and if I try to clean start again I will word it better or disclose the account I wish to cleanstart with to make my editing history more visible and allow scrutiny. I likely won't try to cleanstart again for [[User_talk:JBW/Archive_83#A_westman|this section]] seems to say that they wanted to watch my editing history following the warning, which might be why I was blocked after trying to cleanstart. I don't think the attempted cleanstart is sockpuppetry as I tried to retire this account as I had indicated with {{retired}}. If it is, I did not mean to sockpuppet and wish to review the sockpuppetry rules. If there is another problem with the retired notice please say so: it is on my userpage. <strong     >[[:User:A westman|<span style="color: #e91212; text-decoration: inherit;">A westman</span>]] [[:User talk:A westman|<span style="color: #e91212; text-decoration: inherit;"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">talk</span></span>]]</strong> 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You mean User:Mayn't, which I've now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to Mayn't. --Yamla (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not meant to be a sock and it is not a sock. I have explained what the account was for in my appeal. A westman talk 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 19:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of baselessly accusing me of sockpuppetry, how about you actually clarify for once how I was sockpuppeting and read my points. Do you people at Wikipaedia block whomever you don't like? A westman talk 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 17:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I now know what sockpuppetry is and while User:Mayn't has no edits it was, at first, an undisclosed alt so I would think that it is a sockpuppet. I am sorry for wasting your time [plural] and have written a better unblock request. A westman talk 23:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updaate after the update: Cleanstarting is apparently a legit use of socking, so I assume I was blocked as it was thought I was trying to evade scrutiny. A westman talk 07:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now can you for once tell me how I was/am NOTHERE? A westman talk 16:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep silent? Do you want me to stay blocked? Are you only blocking me just because you don't like me? Do you want to punish me? Are you blocking me to inflate your ego? To assert your authority? Why don't you respond? A westman talk 14:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you responded to my questions for once.. I also specified clearly they were not unblock requests. A westman talk 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 15:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]