User talk:Gexajutyr

Gexajutyr, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gexajutyr! 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 Keelan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Earth

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. It's not necessary, and in some cases it is actually a bad idea, to replace redirects. Meters (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What gets better if the link goes via the redirect Liquid water instead of directly to Water#Liquid water? Gexajutyr (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link. That one was just not necessary. I didn't say that all of your changes were actually detrimental. Meters (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Atmosphere of Earth. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop doing this. Waiting five weeks and then restoring your edit is just disruptive, It makes much more sense to distinguish between "Qualities of air" and "Air quality" than it does to distinguish between "Qualities of air" and "Air pollution". If you don't understand then take it to the article's talk page per WP:BRD Meters (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry my contribution made you upset. Gexajutyr (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTDABLINK violation

Please do not create direct links to disambiguation pages from article space, as you did here. The pipe through the disambiguation title is required by WP:INTDABLINK. BD2412 T 06:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to linking, there is usually nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not improve the article by reverting my edit. Why is it so important for you that the link goes via the redirect Parliamentary democracy instead of directly to Parliamentary system? Gexajutyr (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Canada does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. 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. Also, recognize that links that to redirects do not need to be "fixed" as they are WP:NOTBROKEN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fed up with that NOTBROKEN nonsense. Gexajutyr (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are fed up with your disruptive editing. Please stop bypassing perfectly good redirects. We have already explained why this is a bad idea. Certes (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to to "correct" links that are to redirects. If you continue, we can continue this discussion at an administrator's discussion board. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slow burning edit warring

You have made this specific edit by my count at least 4 times now, each time having been reverted and not once have you taken it to the talk page. Per WP:BRD you make an edit, if reverted you take it to the talk page for consensus. Currently you're engaged in slow burn edit warring. If you make that edit again, without getting consensus for it on the talk page, you will be blocked from editing for edit warring and disruptive edits. Canterbury Tail talk 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sixth talk-page warning

Your edits are very unconstructive and starting to look intentionally disruptive. Literally all your contributions consist of adding pointless pipes and every one of them has been reverted. I am the sixth editor to come here asking you to stop that. If you do not intend to stop, this will have to be reported. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improving links

Gexajutyr, I can see that you want to improve Wikipedia, and we welcome improvements. Although links via redirects should generally be left alone, there are similar ways in which you could help which may be equally rewarding. One is to look at links to disambiguation pages. These are generally wrong. For example, a careless editor may have linked to Mercury when they meant Mercury (planet) or Mercury (element). WikiProject Disambiguation would be happy to help you get started. Alternatively, you could look at links which lead to the wrong article, perhaps because it has a confusingly similar name. For example, some editors seem to think that iPhones are sold by Apple but, as that article is about a fruit, a piped link to Apple Inc. would be better. Again, guidance is available, this time from WikiProject Bluelink patrol. There are other ways to contribute, and I hope that you will find some that suit your tastes. Certes (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for disruptive editing. You may not edit article space until a consensus has been reached at ANI regarding your edits, you can and should participate in that discussion.

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 ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments here, I have unblocked this account. Your comment indicates you will stop making the type of edits that led to the block. You can expect to be held to that. It's fine to disagree with a policy or guideline, there are a number of policies I don't agree with, but I don't go around making edits specifically aimed at violating them. What you can do is ask the community to re-evaluate WP:NOTBROKEN if you think you have a coherent and compelling argument as to why it is wrong. "They are annoying" is neither of those things, so you'll need something better than that if you actually want it changed. Alternately, you can just accept that there is one guideline you simply don't agree with and just move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gexajutyr, might I add that other people will be a lot less frustrated with you if you reply when someone posts to your talk page? Wouldn't that be better than someone having to block you just to get a response out of you? You can practice by reponding to this post. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why you thought wading back in and doing the same sort of thing was a good idea, and I explicitly told you to expect to be held to your commitment to stop it. That you don't like links to redirects is entirely your problem to deal with. You can file an unblock request per the above instructions but personally it seems obvious to me you can't be taken at your word. If you can't control yourself and just live with the fact that there are links to redirects, Wikipedia editing is not for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to change links without piping but apparently it was a bad idea. I believed it was the piping that was the problem but now I understand how mistaken I was. Immediately after becoming unblocked, I continued. I understand what image it must have given of me. If you accept my apologize, I promise that I will think an extra time before publishing an edit. I am sorry for all time I have wasted. Gexajutyr (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per consensus (as I read it) of discussion below — Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2021 (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.

Does it mean that I will be blocked for ever? Gexajutyr (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I speculated at ANI, there has been a misunderstanding: the main problem is not the piping but the bypassing of redirects. Linking via redirects can be very useful. For example, Autumn Glory (apple) redirects to the relevant entry in List of apple cultivars, and will automatically divert to an article about that variety if it is ever written. If you do resume editing, you will also need to follow other guidelines such as not editing others' comments, as you did to mine at ANI and even in your unblock request. I can see that you are a dedicated editor who pays attention to detail and could enjoy being an asset to the project. However, although Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we do need some rules, and you should only return to editing if you feel able to follow them.

If you really do want to bypass redirects, it can be done safely in some limited circumstances. For example, links to Redirects from misspellings should normally be bypassed, but only in the main namespace (articles, not user or talk pages). I will be happy to help further if you are unblocked but, to be candid, you are not helping us to trust you with editing privileges again. Certes (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my edits yesterday were pointless too. I will not do such edits or edit others' comments again. Gexajutyr (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you tell us what sort of edits you do intend to make. It's not mandatory – I signed up for an account without giving any indication of what I was going to do – but it might help an admin to understand how unblocking you would help Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can update sports results, all-time records and goals scored by players. I did such edits before I created my account but now it is a long time ago. However, I doubt that someone would find it "pointless". Gexajutyr (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock.

22:25, 14 April 2021: Blocked.[1]
19:20, 16 April 2021: "I can stop if it is so important for you."[2]
19:53, 16 April 2021: "I can stop with such edits if you find them disruptive. Would you please unblock me?"[3]
20:56, 16 April 2021: "Can anyone please unblock me. I will stop with 'bad' article edits."[4]
18:30, 17 April 2021: Unblocked.[5]
20:54, 17 April 2021: Went right back the behavior that led to the block.[6][7][8]
00:25, 18 April 2021: Blocked.[9]
10:45, 18 April 2021: "Immediately after becoming unblocked, I continued. I understand what image it must have given of me. If you accept my apologize, I promise that I will think an extra time before publishing an edit. I am sorry for all time I have wasted. "[10]
11:31, 18 April 2021: "I understand that my edits yesterday were pointless too. I will not do such edits or edit others' comments again."[11]

My recommendation: allow Gexajutyr to appeal the block after six months with a convincing argument as to why we should believe any promises made. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The day before yesterday I believed that it only was piping that was pointless. Yesterday I did not understand that the edits I made then were pointless too. Now I understand it and I will not do such edits again either. I did not think it was the same behavior as before the first block but apparently I thought wrong. Six months is a very long time. I think three is enough. Gexajutyr (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me that "I didn't understand" excuse. Your talk page is full of people telling you exactly what you were doing wrong, and you had multiple opportunities to ask for clarification if you were confused. After you were unblocked you once again had an opportunity to ask "I am thinking about making edit X. Is it allowed?" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, scrolling up this page one easily finds numerous links to WP:NOTBROKEN. I can only conclude that either you never actually bothered to read and understand it, you are incapable of understanding it, or you read and understood it and chose to ignore it anyway. None of those is acceptable for an issue that has been going on for about six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A block is not a punishment. The important thing is that I now know that I did wrong. In the future I will ask if edits I think about are allowed. Gexajutyr (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this is different from your previous promises to stop the behavior ... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. You've broken your word already, and I do not see discussion with you about why individual links to redirects should or should not exist as a productive use of anyone's time, you need to just leave it alone as you clearly can't control yourself in this area. I would therefore propose a blanket topic ban on editing any link to a redirect, anywhere on Wikipedia, for any reason (since you've even edited other users' comments in project space to "correct" them in this manner). If you were to violate such a restriction, even once, you would be blocked again. If you accept this restriction, you may not appeal it for a minimum of six months, and no more often than every six months after that. So, it would still be on you to control yourself, but you would be doing so with the full and undeniable knowledge that any edit you make to a link to a redirect is off-limits and doing so will get you re-blocked. I would suggest this to any reviewing admin as a hard requirement for an unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with an unblock that includes such a topic ban. I don't believe that Gexajutyr will abide by it but of course they are welcome to prove me wrong. To avoid gaming the system I think that it should be any redirect or link to a redirect, anywhere on Wikipedia, for any reason with Gexajutyr explicitly allowed to suggest (but not make) such edits on article talk pages only. Note to Gexajutyr; this isn't my decision to make -- As an ordinary editor I can only recommend. The fact that you posted a standard appeal means that a completely new administrator who has nothing to do with any of your previous blocks will decide whether to unblock you. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that now I know that avoiding redirects can be disruptive even without piping. I know: I should have asked you about it, but now we should not concentrate on what once was. I never wanted to break my words. I can agree with the kind of unblock Guy Macon suggested. Gexajutyr (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you afraid that I will try another way to avoid redirects if you unblock me? Can you at least shorten the block? Gexajutyr (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's an indefinite block, so there is no "shortening" it. I deliberately did not make it a timed block. I can't see how the passage of time will affect your ability and/or willingness to stop making edits to links to redirects. What I am doing is not reviewing my own block, but rather leaving the appeal open for an uninvolved admin to review it. That can sometimes take a bit of time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion after decline

My fault, I was looking at this a couple of days ago and then lost track of it. I thought near the end of the discussion above there was a 3-way agreement to an unblock contingent on a topic ban from "modifying any redirect or link to a redirect, anywhere on Wikipedia, for any reason with Gexajutyr explicitly allowed to suggest (but not make) such edits on article talk pages only". Beeb, Guy, and Gex all said they could accept that, although Beeb and GM are skeptical it will work. I'm also a little skeptical, but think it's worth a shot, based on some combination of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE. If it works, great. if it doesn't, then yes, Gex, to answer a question you asked above, you'd be blocked forever for all practical purposes. @David Case:, would you mind if I tried that? Sorry to waste your time reviewing, I should have put it on hold or acted sooner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I'm hopeless. repinging @Daniel Case:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still OK with an unblock with firm and crystal clear instructions so that we don't end up with an "I though it was OK because..." situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an unblock denial isn't permanent, is it? So sure. The unblock request had been untouched for some time; I got the impression people had given up. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Daniel, and sorry again for the runaround (and the screwup on your name).

So, Gexajutyr, to be extremely clear, do you agree to all of the following?

You're willing to be unblocked with the requirement that you will not modify in any way any redirect, nor any link to a redirect, anywhere on Wikipedia? If Foo is a redirect to Bar, and there is a link [[baz|foo]], you aren't allowed to mess with any part of the "foo" part or the "baz" part. Even if it is an error.
You understand that if you do so, you'll be reblocked immediately, and it would be extraordinarily unlikely that you'd ever be unblocked after that. So this is a last warning.
You are allowed to suggest (but not make) such edits on article talk pages only. If consensus develops to make the change, you will still not make the change yourself; someone else will do it if they think there's consensus.
If you are unclear on whether an edit would be allowed or not, don't make it. Don't try to test the boundaries.
You are not required to agree that WP:NOTBROKEN is a good idea; you are required to acknowledge that the WP community has decided that it is a good idea, and you do not get to overrule the community's consensus on this.

This will mean basically a 180 degree change from everything you've spent your time doing here, so I'm concerned. But hopeful. If you're clear on all that, and good with it, let me know and I'll unblock. Now is the time to ask if I've been unclear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also advise Gexajutyr not to change unpiped links [[foo]] where Foo is a redirect. (There was confusion earlier over whether the discussion might apply only to piped links.) Certes (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. You have not been unclear. I want this nightmare to be over. Gexajutyr (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then,

Done. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful. Gexajutyr (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Let us imagine that I change [[Etsako language|Etsako]] to [[Afenmai language|Etsako]]! The link is already piped and I only change the link text so I do not break any grammar. Would such an edit become reverted? Would I become blocked for it? Gexajutyr (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that edit would violate the conditions you agreed to above and would make Wikipedia (marginally) worse. Although Etsako language redirects to Afenmai language because they are closely related and are described in the same article, they are subtly different topics. The current link has the advantage that if anyone writes a new article on Etsako or creates its own section within Afenmai language or another article, the link will automatically improve to lead to the correct place. Changing it to bypass the redirect would not be helpful and would make it harder to improve in future. I can't say whether anyone would revert or block you, but both seem very likely. Certes (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above question concerns me.

When asked "So, Gexajutyr, to be extremely clear, do you agree to all of the following?" (list follows) as a condition of unblocking Gexajutyr replied "Yes, I agree. You have not been unclear." yet now I am seeing Gexajutyr asking if it is OK to do something that in unambiguously on the list of things that they are no longer allowed to do.

Extended content

Do not modify in any way any redirect, nor any link to a redirect, anywhere on Wikipedia?
If Foo is a redirect to Bar, and there is a link [[baz|foo]], you aren't allowed to mess with any part of the "foo" part or the "baz" part. Even if it is an error.
Do not to change unpiped links [[foo]] where Foo is a redirect.
If you do so, you'll be reblocked immediately, and it would be extraordinarily unlikely that you'd ever be unblocked after that. So this is a last warning.
You are allowed to suggest (but not make) such edits on article talk pages only. If consensus develops to make the change, you will still not make the change yourself; someone else will do it if they think there's consensus.
If you are unclear on whether an edit would be allowed or not, don't make it. Don't try to test the boundaries.
You are not required to agree that WP:NOTBROKEN is a good idea; you are required to acknowledge that the WP community has decided that it is a good idea, and you do not get to overrule the community's consensus on this.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, the restriction is not at all vague. What you need to do is basically pretend redirects don't exist and you don't see them for at least the next six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve our wikilinks in a way that other editors will appreciate rather than criticising, please see #Suggestions for improving links above. If you are just here to get rid of links to redirects, then I'm afraid the consensus is not to do so. Certes (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Gexajutyr follows the suggestions at suggestions for improving links or in any way "improves our wikilinks in a way that other editors will appreciate rather than criticising" they will be instantly blocked and most likely never be unblocked. Better to advise them to stay away from wikilinks entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will not do so. Gexajutyr (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. Blatant violation of your unblock conditions

So you agreed as a condition of your previous unblock to stop altering redirects and changing indirect links that are WP:NOTBROKEN. Yet you continue to persist in this behaviour. In fact your very first edit after being unblocked violated it. Since these are blatant and clear violations of your unblock conditions, you have been blocked again indefinitely. It's pretty obvious at this point that you are deliberately refusing to get it regarding these edits, and only about 3 weeks into your 6 month ban on doing such actions you're back at it continuously. I haven't checked through all your edits to see how much you've done this lately, but they are clear violations and you've been blocked again for it. Considering you were quite clearly informed that it is likely your last chance, you continued to deliberately make such edits anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 01:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see three possibilities:

You are unable to comprehend the restriction despite agreeing to it and having clarifying questions answered above.
You understand the restriction but feel some sort of compulsion you are unable to control to alter redirects in this manner.
You understand the restriction and are able to exhibit some degree of self-control but because you disagree with the premise of the restriction you deliberately violated it anyway, possibly in the hope that nobody would notice.

Only you know which of these things it is, but they are all equally unacceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all the editors who tried to help. I am reluctantly forced to agree that Gexajutyr's views on redirects are incompatible with Wikipedia's consensus, and unblocking would be unlikely to produce a net positive contribution. Certes (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for what I did. I will not do it again. I hope you can apologize me. Gexajutyr (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand what I was blocked for. I should have left the redirects alone. It will not be repeated. Gexajutyr (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've made these promises before; as far as I'm concerned there is no good faith left to extend to you.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 4 November 2021 (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.

Trouble is, anyone can see that you've made this promise multiple times before, and immediately gone back on your word each time you were believed. It's very much a The Boy Who Cried Wolf situation. Possibly your only route to being unblocked is to follow the procedure outlined at {{2nd chance}}, given the repeated false promises in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox:, given the editing history here, I think you are being very kind. I often wish I wasn't so jaded that I could find such kindness in my own interactions. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought at this for several months now and I have improved. I have watched that second chance template and I choose to pick some pre-existing article I wish to improve. I can update international goals scored by players. I did it before the block. Gexajutyr (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is obvious that you are not going to unblock me. I hope you have changed at my next request. Gexajutyr (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. What we need is some reason to believe youhave changed, specifically in your willingness to abide by the policy you kept deliberately breaking. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest that you establish a pattern of editing well on another project. Then I looked at your global contributions, and saw that your last edit elsewhere was to bypass on Dutch Wikipedia a redirect which English Wikipedia would consider NOTBROKEN and Dutch Wikipedia agrees: see nl:WP:REP. Perhaps the best option is for you to continue your crusade against redirects on a project which welcomes it, but I don't think that place is English or Dutch Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And resorting to socking and block evasion is not a good look. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]