User talk:Crainsaw/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Crainsaw. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome!
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pharaoh of the Wizards thanks for your tips 👍 Crainsaw (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Kautilya3 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 thanks for the heads up 👍 Crainsaw (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
February 2023
Hi Crainsaw! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Babri Masjid several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Babri Masjid, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 hey kautilya3, I left a message on the Babri Masjid talk page under categories Crainsaw (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome Crainsaw!I'm Sm8900, 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: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} 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:
|
|
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.
Sincerely, Sm8900 (talk) (Leave me a message) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Sm8900 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- thanks for the tips, these info-boxes really help, and save me a lot of time when researching what to or how to do something on Wikipedia. Appreciate it Crainsaw (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prussia open tasks
A tag has been placed on Category:Prussia open tasks indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Crainsaw,
It is a very bold action for a new and inexperienced account like yours, who hasn't even been editing for 2 weeks, to take on reviving a WikiProject on their own. It's a lot of work and you don't even know what is required to Keep a WikiProject going. There is no way this effort can succeed without some help so I hope you find a good number (6-8) other editors who are interested in Prussia and willing to share the workload. This is not how most new editors start off their editing career on the project so I wish you good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Prussia articles needing attention
A tag has been placed on Category:Prussia articles needing attention indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
Hi Crainsaw! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Transgender genocide that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Castle Eppstein has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)- Wow, I submitted the Castle Eppstein article 1 day ago, and it already got accepted!? While I submitted my article Kreis Heilsberg 3.5 months ago, and It's still pending, I know you guys are busy, but if you have time please consider checking it out. Crainsaw (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hofheim, Hesse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senior. 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) 06:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kreis Heilsberg has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Turnagra (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)June 2023
Your recent editing history at British Raj 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Johnbod reverted my edits twice, but over a 2-day period, and I reinstated by edit, after he didn't respond for 24 hours, how exactly is this an edit war? The definition of edit warring is "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts". Crainsaw (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you have to post this Block notification on both mine and Johnbods talk, he reverted more than I did, he still didn't get a warning, what happened to equality? Crainsaw (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- So there is no misunderstanding, that's not the definiton of edit-warring. There are two distinct issues: if you breach 3RR you will be blocked; but quite separately if you continue to try to get your way in an article through reverting, whether or not 3RR is beached, you are edit-warring and will be blocked. I'm not sure what you mean by "equality". Jonbod is an experienced user who understands what edit-warring is and is mainting the consensus version of an article. You clearly are an inexperienced user who does not understand what edit-warring is and are trying to force your interpretation into an article by reverting. It's not an "equal" situation. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa he might be maintaining a consensus, whivh he failed to link for almost two days now. And how exactly am I trying to Force my interpretation on the article even though I have reverted only a single time. Afger Johnbod didn't respond for an extended period of time. But we should discuss this further on the British Raj talk page. Crainsaw (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've already linked to WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Please be aware of WP:ONUS. DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa he might be maintaining a consensus, whivh he failed to link for almost two days now. And how exactly am I trying to Force my interpretation on the article even though I have reverted only a single time. Afger Johnbod didn't respond for an extended period of time. But we should discuss this further on the British Raj talk page. Crainsaw (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- So there is no misunderstanding, that's not the definiton of edit-warring. There are two distinct issues: if you breach 3RR you will be blocked; but quite separately if you continue to try to get your way in an article through reverting, whether or not 3RR is beached, you are edit-warring and will be blocked. I'm not sure what you mean by "equality". Jonbod is an experienced user who understands what edit-warring is and is mainting the consensus version of an article. You clearly are an inexperienced user who does not understand what edit-warring is and are trying to force your interpretation into an article by reverting. It's not an "equal" situation. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Policies, guidelines, essays
Discussion at Talk:British Raj has moved on, but maybe it'll be helpful for future situations if I mention a way in which the English-language Wikipedia may differ from the German. In Wikipedia space, with shortcuts beginning WP:, we have not only policies and guidelines (and pillars) but also essays. Some of those essays such as WP:BRD are often cited and have become established norms, but as even that page warns, This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
Other essays may have shortcuts like WP:CSIOR or WP:WOULDCHUCK but may have had minimal collaborative input, let alone represent consensus; those shortcuts will not be recognised by many editors and citing them will not necessarily be persuasive. Hope this helps! NebY (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Crainsaw! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 14:06, Tuesday, June 13, 2023 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
CS1 error on Ukrainian Air Force
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ukrainian Air Force, 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) 20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
IPAc-de
Please do not use IPAc templates if you don't understand what the output means. The IPAc-de transcriptions you've instated are completely bogus. Nardog (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry I'll revert all of them, I'm no expert, I was just learning from other IPAc templates. Crainsaw (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Could you teach me how to do it correctly? Crainsaw (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unlike Polish, German orthography is not phonemic. Although there are some patterns, there's no way to "do it correctly" except to find the pronunciation and transcribe for each word. Please just remove the ones you added. Nardog (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- If there isn't a standard way to use IPA for the German language, can't I add it as a native German speaker? I can also speak a bit of Niederpreußisch (East Prussian dialect) if that helps. Crainsaw (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is a standard way to use IPA for German. It's Help:IPA/Standard German. It's just that it's impossible to automatically derive a transcription from spelling unlike with Polish. If you're a native speaker, then it shouldn't be difficult to learn how to transcribe just by studying the help page, existing transcriptions on wiki, dictionaries like Das Aussprachewörterbuch (Duden) and Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch (de Gruyter) (though their transcriptions can't be copied verbatim, you have to convert them to conform to our key), and other works about Standard German phonology. Nardog (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I‘ll see to it in the coming days that all my added IPAs‘ get removed or properly transcribed. Crainsaw (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is a standard way to use IPA for German. It's Help:IPA/Standard German. It's just that it's impossible to automatically derive a transcription from spelling unlike with Polish. If you're a native speaker, then it shouldn't be difficult to learn how to transcribe just by studying the help page, existing transcriptions on wiki, dictionaries like Das Aussprachewörterbuch (Duden) and Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch (de Gruyter) (though their transcriptions can't be copied verbatim, you have to convert them to conform to our key), and other works about Standard German phonology. Nardog (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- If there isn't a standard way to use IPA for the German language, can't I add it as a native German speaker? I can also speak a bit of Niederpreußisch (East Prussian dialect) if that helps. Crainsaw (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unlike Polish, German orthography is not phonemic. Although there are some patterns, there's no way to "do it correctly" except to find the pronunciation and transcribe for each word. Please just remove the ones you added. Nardog (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
June 2023
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
The edit summary field looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! Nardog (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Philipp Ludwig Adam has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Philipp Caspers (July 7)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jacob Philipp Caspers and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Crainsaw!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Frank Morano on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) |
The facts are not in dispute: see this post to ANI, and subsequent ones. A block is appropriate. As I noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa, CU did not provide enough technical evidence for a block, but the subsequent discussion at ANI brought the truth to light--and let me just note how rare it is. There is some discussion at the SPI over what can be done here: for now I'll just link to WP:OFFER, and such conversation should take place here. Pinging some involved editors and administrators: Piotrus (thank you for your effort in the SPI, Piotrus), Volunteer Marek, Star Mississippi, MarioGom, Lourdes. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I admitted too being Kaiser because Lourdes said there might be a slight chance of me being unblocked, I understand why Lourdes thought I was a sock, because CU said so. There's no need for further wasting of admin and editor time. I'll go to WP:UTRS, and get unblocked. Crainsaw (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
is closed. (long, protracted sigh) I mean, I want to believe appellant, but I'm renowned for my gullibility. This needs to be hashed out here and not UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- But the UTRS page says "3. If the block is a checkuser block, send it to review by checkusers", I wasn't requesting an unblock, I was requesting another CU report. There was no need to apologize on the appeals case. Crainsaw (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I also wrote this in the appeal "I request another Checkuser to review my case" Crainsaw (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- More than one checkuser already did. Interesting turn of phrase. "Admitted to." People smarter than I need to consider unblocking you. And that starts with the the unblock template. No, it starts with reading the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Then add the text
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}A member of the Unblock Request Team will look it all over. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)- This is not a check user block per se. It is not tagged as such. Any admin can unblock you. And the check users routinely review CAT:UNBLOCK. Please read the WP:GAB. It all starts there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry blocks only explains appeals if you're actually guilty for socking, and only your main account (In this case Kaiser von Europa) can get unblocked, if I were Kaiser, I would've logged in years ago to appeal or take the standard offer. The reason I admitted (falsely) to socking, was because I'm not an senseless idealist, and take every chance to not get banned. Lourdes said there was a slight chance I would remain unblocked if I admitted, and I took my chance. I'm not sure any admin (myself included) will listen to me after checkuser "confirmed" me being a sock. All this can be avoided through another simple checkuser. Also, as noted at the ANI by an user, non-CU admins aren't allowed to repeal blocks which were imposed due to CU.
- For you to believe my requests, and not write them off as "cope", I have a number of reasons why I'll keep appealing till I can.
- If I were a sock then I would've shut up by now, and taken my chances with the standard offer.
- Because if I kept appealing, and losing, it not only would reduce my chances of acceptance with the standard offer.
- My appeals would not only waste admin time, but also my time, what would I gain by continuously appealing despite knowing I'm a sock. The only reason is I'd want to waste community resources as a sort of revenge which is reminiscent of the mindset of an 10 years old.
- If you're still not convinced, I can email you other more private means through which I can prove my innocence. Crainsaw (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I do wish you would please follow instructions and use the unblock template. Please do not email me. I don't seem to be communicating clearly enough for you to understand. Again, please use the unblock template as instructed. If anyone is to unblock you it will not be me. So far, you've not appealed at all except via UTRS. And debating with me is tedious and time wasting. I will not be likely to respond further. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also, what will happen to my drafts? Is being banned a reason for rejection? Draft:House of Kaphengst, Draft:Westendhall, Draft:Franz Peter Adams and Draft:Chancellorship of Konrad Adenauer Crainsaw (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- No idea about the drafts, at a guess, WP:G5 might have come into play. Again, please follow instructions given. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- They're all there . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- No idea about the drafts, at a guess, WP:G5 might have come into play. Again, please follow instructions given. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a check user block per se. It is not tagged as such. Any admin can unblock you. And the check users routinely review CAT:UNBLOCK. Please read the WP:GAB. It all starts there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- More than one checkuser already did. Interesting turn of phrase. "Admitted to." People smarter than I need to consider unblocking you. And that starts with the the unblock template. No, it starts with reading the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Then add the text
- I also wrote this in the appeal "I request another Checkuser to review my case" Crainsaw (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)