User talk:Isaacarthy

June 2020

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Frozen. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Playmobil: The Movie—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacarthy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Isaacarthy! 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 Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Film leads

Please don't write your own review of a film in the lead or reception section. If you want to do that, there are plenty of other websites you can use, or you could start a film review blog. Wikipedia only posts what reliable sources have already said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Despicable Me 3, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Again, "stylished" is not important in the intro. Chompy Ace 00:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Extinct (film), you may be blocked from editing. BOVINEBOY2008 20:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Cuties. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Extinct (film), 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. BOVINEBOY2008 11:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ant-Man and the Wasp, 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tron: Legacy. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. – The Grid (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Yes Day, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of American films of 2021, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Lambert. 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) 05:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amie Doherty (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mcguy15 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amie Doherty and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Amie Doherty, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm GoneIn60. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Man of Steel (film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amie Doherty (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amie Doherty and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Amie Doherty, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joel P. West

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Joel P. West requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel P. West. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 47992

UTRS appeal #47992 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to my block

@NinjaRobotPirate:

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I'll start off by saying that in the time I've been editing on Wikipedia, I have made my fair share of mistakes. I've constantly added unsourced content, I added material to articles without previously discussing it in a talk page, I didn't listen to admins when they told me to not do something, and even after being blocked from editing, I used two sockpuppet accounts called Kim Jong Dos and Emperor Dust to try and evade said blocks. What I did was wrong, especially with my deliberate use of sockpuppet accounts, but also my impulsive habits of applying whatever I wanted to certain articles despite not having permission to do so. As such, I've thought things through for some time, and I have decided to come to you to ask about appealing my block. Of course, I won't do what I already explained that got me in trouble in the first place, but if I were to be unblocked, I would like to ask if I could undergo a period of probation/mentorship with a more experienced editor advising me. And if I end up making my same mistakes, you can reblock or even ban me. You don't have to let me back in to editing Wikipedia, nor do I expect you to. All I'm saying is that what I did was wrong, and I want to make things right. Isaacarthy (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User will wait the WP:SO period before requesting unblock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:29, 5 May 2022 (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.

If someone wants to unblock you, that's fine with me. As far as I remember, the situation was exactly as you say – repeatedly adding your own personal thoughts to Wikipedia articles. Stuff like "critics hated this because of some random thing I disliked, this is obviously hard rock music, this is a parody instead of a comedy, this guy is a film score composer instead of a songwriter". This unblock request looks to understand the issues, but you just got caught engaging in sock puppetry. And 90% the time that sock puppets get caught, it's because they were doing the same thing once again that originally got them blocked. I would recommend the standard offer, after which you could take a mentor or whatever. You can still edit Simple English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, and other projects. If you can edit them constructively for even just a couple months, that would be an improvement over requesting an unblock a week after your sock puppet is blocked. It may not seem like it, but lots of editors get unblocked. You just have to prove that you have the integrity and competence to go through the proper channels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Isaacarthy was caught evading their block with Emperor Dust, as part of the investigation into UTRS appeal #57978. That account was not disclosed until after we caught it. I oppose unblocking this serial block evader. --Yamla (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for responding on such short notice. While I understand the concerns of admins such as Yamla, I am still willing to try and clean up my act here on Wikipedia. For the time being, I'm totally fine with taking the standard offer and steering clear of editing until November. If someone else decides I'm in the clear beforehand, that's also good. Again, I'm wanting to do whatever is possible to be a better editor on Wikipedia, so if you or another admin want to talk more about all of this, then do let me know. Isaacarthy (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another appeal to my block

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Well, it's been some time, hasn't it? About six months ago, I officially decided to take the standard offer after it was found out that I had been using sock accounts to keep editing on this website. And even though I spent most of that time waiting like a rational person would, I did make a few edits on the Simple English Wikipedia where I mainly did stuff like improve grammar and sentence structure or unlink red articles, so I have a bit of experience for if I start editing here again. But back onto the main subject: My block being appealed. Now, of course, I know why I was blocked in the first place. Outside of me using sock accounts to evade punishment, I've constantly added unsourced content, I added material to articles without previously discussing it in a talk page, and I didn't listen to admins when they told me to not do something. All of that was wrong of me to do, and I can assure you that if you let me back onto Wikipedia, you will not see any of that behavior from me again. I have learned from my mistakes, and I assure all of you that I'll be much more productive as an editor from here on out. I'd even like to ask I undergo a period of probation or mentorship with a more experienced editor advising me to make sure I don't do anything wrong. I might be sounding like a broken record since, of course, this is very similar to my previous unblock request, but I have seen the error in my ways and I promise to be a more productive editor on this site from here on out. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do or any other information I should be aware of, and thanks for reading. Isaacarthy (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit reluctant to unblock you because it seems like you're still adding unsourced content while editing Simple English Wikipedia, as in simple:Special:Diff/8375705. However, this seems like a reasonable unblock request, so I guess it's worth a try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but as I mentioned, a lot of my edits mostly involve grammar fixes. Thanks for being able to respond, and do let me know if there's anything else I should be aware of. Isaacarthy (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your indefinite block because you've gone right back to adding unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I deserve that. However, I want to reiterate that a lot of my edits revolve around fixing sentence structure and unlinking red articles, so I feel like that should be fine. However, I do apologize for doing so right after you let me back in, and I assure you that I will try to better source what I write in the future. Isaacarthy (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused

@NinjaRobotPirate A few weeks ago, I finished my time on the Standard Offer and requested an unblock, since I was previously blocked for not properly sourcing content (that and using sock accounts after the fact, but I was mainly blocked for the former reason). Well, not too long after that happened and only a handful of edits later, my block was reinstated because I "[went] right back to adding unsourced content". I get that Wikipedia should be policed in some form from people trying to cause genuine harm to the site, but overall, I've been a bit stumped about this whole situation.

For starters, let's discuss "unsourced content". Of course, citing sources is definitely important and I understand wanting to police that rule. However, as I've mentioned before, a lot of my edits revolve around fixing typos, improving sentence structure, removing contractions, and linking articles to subjects mentioned in the article I'm editing. Maybe I should just say that stuff is minor edits, but I don't think simply doing that should mean that I should just be booted off the website.

In addition, I also feel like I'm not being given enough rope to hold onto as a Wikipedia editor. Of course, I'm nowhere near as experienced as you are, so I haven't been too familiar with the ins-and-outs of editing other than some basic information. This is why I suggested having a probation where a more experienced editor would supervise me and also explain how to better myself as an editor. And if that can still be arranged, I would much appreciate it.

That's just about all I really wanted to address with this, that being some confusions with what's considered "unsourced edits" as well as why I don't feel as though I've been given enough room to improve my craft. Maybe this can be seen as an unblock request, I'm not sure, but I'm already sure that might not be the case. Heck, I'm probably one slip-up away from being banned from editing for life at this point. But even still, I just wanted to explain my perspective and how maybe I could've used some extra wiggle room. Isaacarthy (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another appeal to my block

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I know this probably doesn't mean much to you at this point, but I think I really understand why I was blocked all that time ago. I almost never added good sources to the stuff I was writing about, and while I'd mostly make minor edits such as improving grammar and removing red articles, I still should've tried to be a more competent and helpful editor on the Wikipedia environment. However, I feel like I've learned from my past mistakes and I'm ready to more meaningfully contribute to editing on this website. I'd also like to ask, as I've previously recommended, if my block is lifted, that I could undergo a period of probation with a more experienced moderator advising me. In addition, I'll always write the reason I edited an article, so if it's just a minor change, you'll know. I'm not entirely sure if my block will be lifted, but as you told me before, lots of editors get blocked. However, I believe that if I am allowed back on the site, my edits will be much more meaningful and better-sourced. Isaacarthy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. In Special:Diff/1120633398, you changed the genres of a film without a source. A grammar fix is changing "he are not" to "he is not". Changing genres is not a grammar fix. Most of your other edits are like this, too. You have a talk page full of warnings that explain when and how to cite sources. If you want to be unblocked, follow Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and make an unblock request. If you can convince someone that you've learned how and when to cite sources, they'll unblock you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're the only person I need to convince that I can properly source stuff, so I'll try and word my next request a bit better then. Isaacarthy (talk) 19:55, 15 February 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).

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

Request reason:

To whoever is reading this, hi. I'm User:Isaacarthy, and I've here to make an appeal to my block from editing on English Wikipedia. So let’s not waste any time and get into the main reason why I was blocked from editing in the first place: My lack of sourced content. While I had tried saying before that I’d just make minor edits to remove conjugations and improve the way sentences are phrased, for the more major edits I’d make (I.E. changing a film’s genre or editing someone’s biography), I'd forget to cite my sources. Of course, all I’d have to do is find an article that says something not already featured in the article I’m working on, use the “cite web” template to add a source since most of the information I find is online, and add my source, but I’d almost never do that. As you said, I have a talk page full of warnings to add better sourced content, and yet I always ignored said warnings. So, while I completely understand why I was blocked to begin with, I also feel that I understand what I should do moving forward. I’ve familiarized myself with how I should cite sources and if I am unblocked, not only will I stop incessantly making poorly-sourced edits, but I’d also go to the Community Portal and Task Center more often to help improve articles in need of some fine-tuning. And that's why I'm here right now, to say that I've made some mistakes, but I recognize what I did wrong and am more than willing to make things right. Now, sure, you don't have to unblock me. In fact, if I slip up again, you can boot me from editing for good if you want. However, I believe I am ready to be a much more productive editor on this platform if I am allowed back on. Isaacarthy (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Further requests should be made via WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 16 March 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 am very hesitant accept this unblock because of the multiple times you have been blocked, which apparently has not changed the behaviour. Please answer the questions below to help give confidence to administrators that you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

Why is it important for editors to cite their work (Hint: WP:V)
Please pick an article on Wikipedia that you would like to edit to add information to. Briefly outline the edit you would make to the article (one sentence will suffice) and include the proper formatting for the citation.

Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Hi Z1720. Alright, here's my answer to your questions. First off, the reason it's important for Wikipedia editors to cite their work all boils down to their information being verifiable, so someone else can look at what they wrote and know that they're being truthful. As for your second part, I'm not entirely sure what I'd do for a new article. This is why I've frequently suggested having a period of probation with someone more experienced supervising me. I guess I'd change the list of composers for Hans Zimmer's Remote Control Productions to include Matthew Margeson, with my source being as follows: ^[1]. I fully understand why you're hesitant to unblock me, and you don't have to. However, I'm fully willing to accept responsibility for my past errors and move forward as a much more productive and reliable editor on this website. Isaacarthy (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Hi Z1720. Ok, so I've come up with something and I'd like your input: How about I create an article on someone or something that doesn't already have one and correctly include all the sources I need to show I can be a reliable editor? This is just an idea I had, but I do think it could be a step in the right direction for me to improve my editing skills on Wikipedia. Please let me know if there's anything else you want to tell me at your earliest convenience. Isaacarthy (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?! I've revoked your talk page access as to prevent any similar disruption. WP:UTRS is available for appeals. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: DFO waves. Sticks out tongue. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #70866

is open. @Ponyo: Unblock? Restore TPA? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @Z1720: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of unblocking, but I'm easy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I'm not the blocking admin, NinjaRobotPirate is. I just revoked talk page access.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would say it's fine to restore talk page access. Everybody makes mistakes. However, I already took a chance on this user's promises. If you think this time will be different than last time, I don't have a problem with unblocking him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the "CrazyAdministrator" edit was actually made by User:Ryu210, who did that other places too.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will restore talk page access, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring my talk page access. Isaacarthy (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate Well well well, we meet again. I already sent this abridged version of why I should be unblocked to Deepfriedokra, but I figured you should also see it. Basically, I was blocked because I failed to properly source content I added, and because I tried evading blocks via sockpuppets. As for how I’d improve to be a more competent editor, I’d always add sources to whatever I’m writing, and I’ll also check in an article’s talk page if what I’m adding is ok. Isaacarthy (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I told you to copy it here. Smarting off at NRP is a good way to make me look like a fool for restoring talk page access and to lose talk page access. Please place your unblock request, as you phrased it at UTRS in a new unblock request here. As you were instructed. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll go do that then. Isaacarthy (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Question: Since I was told to put future unblock requests at UTRS, should I do that with the most recent request I sent a few days ago? Just curious is all. Isaacarthy (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have access to your talk page for the express purpose of requesting unblock here, and because you do have access to your talk age, please request unblocking here. If you post to UTRS while having access to your talk page, you will be told to post to your talk page, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnd, you have an open unblock request. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Never mind then, I guess now all I have to do is wait. Alright, that's all I needed. Isaacarthy (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeez. Sorry no. Once I close the UTRS ticket, I don't do much else. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:51, 3 May 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).

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

Request reason:

@NinjaRobotPirate Ok, I've already sent another unblock request earlier, so I'll just condense this new one down to the basic information. Basically, I was blocked because I failed to properly source content I added, and because I tried evading blocks via sockpuppets. As for how I’d improve to be a more competent editor, I’d always add sources to whatever I’m writing, and I’ll also check in an article’s talk page if what I’m adding is ok. Isaacarthy (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 09:53, 4 May 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.

@Yamla That's what I tried to do in my most recent request, and I do plan to do all of the things you said I should've added to said request. It might be weird for me to ask this to you, but how would you have me word another unblock request so it'll have a better chance of being reviewed?

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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla and @NinjaRobotPirate As previously explained, the reason I was blocked from editing on Wikipedia was because I didn't properly source the content I added, I added content to articles without bringing it up in a talk page or summarizing my edit, and because I tried evading blocks via sock puppet accounts. However, while I get why I was blocked in the first place, I don't think it's necessary anymore as I've learned from my mistakes and am willing to be a more competent and reliable editor on this platform. To prove this, I will do a much better job at citing whatever I'm able to, asking before making a major edit, and just generally not making disruptive or unreliable changes to articles. I even have a few ideas for some articles I wanted to make to demonstrate that I can be a trustworthy editor, so I'm here now to ask if whoever is reading this can review my block and potentially give me one more shot at editing on Wikipedia. Isaacarthy (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's largely not a great answer to that. I suggest reading through what makes a source reliable and independent (as a hint, an interview is generally not independent, since it's generally the subject talking about themself.) Also, direct quotes should be used very sparingly, and only when it's for some reason critical to know exactly what someone said; otherwise text should almost always be paraphrased. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:34, 4 June 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.

Could you be more specific about what you've learned, specifically both in terms of how and when to cite sources, and how to evaluate whether a reference is appropriate and reliable? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade Certainly. What I've learned from being blocked is not only that sources are important, but also when and how to use them. For when I'd use a source, I'd likely use direct quotes or pieces of information from the person or people involved in what I'm writing about, such as interviews or journalist websites. Once I can confirm that the information I'm using is accurate, I'd add it to the article I'm editing, such as this example right here: ^[2]. As I've stated before in previous unblock requests, I believe that me being unblocked would be the best way to prove that I can be a competent editor. Having said that, it's still good to have an idea of what I'd be doing before I jump straight into things. Isaacarthy (talk) 22:21, 4 June 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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla, @NinjaRobotPirate and @Seraphimblade: After doing some reading, I've learned about not only when to cite sources, but also what makes them appropriate to use. Of course, good sources to use come directly from books and websites (although their contents would obviously have to be paraphrased) as well as whoever wrote or distributed said book or website. Despite previous statements, self-published sources, such as direct quotes from someone I'm writing about, are sources I'd stay away from unless the source in question was written or produced by an established expert on the subject matter at hand. As for independent sources, it's obviously important to be writing without bias on Wikipedia. Since I primarily edit pages on and related to movies, autobiographies and interviews are less reliable sources to use, and it'd be better to get information from newspapers or magazines unaffiliated with the people behind a piece of entertainment. Once I can verify that the source I'm using is appropriate to use, then I'd add it, as I've previously said that I would do if I were to be unblocked. Isaacarthy (talk) 2:20 pm, 5 June 2023, Monday (9 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, the second sentence of this appeal (Of course...) suggests continued confusion as to what makes sources reliable, or else fails to adequately communicate a solid understanding of the relevant policy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:00, 15 June 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.

@Rosguill I know my most recent request was published a month ago, but yes, I am confused about this website's sourcing policies and I feel like I've been treated far too unfairly throughout all of this, although I do explain in further detail some of my frustrations with how I've been treated for not being the best editor the site has ever had. Isaacarthy (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not Rosguill, but I saw this here. And I think the concern here is, you already had many opportunities to learn what we're looking for as far as encyclopedia-quality sourcing, and you just don't seem able to get there. You had multiple warnings and several temporary blocks before the indefinite one was imposed; any of those might have been a good time to slow down and make sure you did better. Ultimately, even if someone seems not to have any ill intent, if they just keep causing disruption and can't seem to understand how to do better, sometimes we just have to conclude that editing Wikipedia is not a good fit for them. It's certainly not an outcome anyone takes pleasure in, but it does happen. So, if anyone were to consider an unblock, I think you'd need to convince them that you are at least able to learn what needs a reference, and what types of references you should be seeking out for that purpose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade Yes, I’m aware that I’ve previously ignored warnings from other admins and continued to add unreliable edits, which I fully regret and want to take responsibility for. And even though I’ve stated before that I want to become a better editor, it seems more likely than not that I’ll probably be permanently blacklisted from editing altogether. However, I still want to prove I can be a reliable editor even if I fell short before. I know references are vital to the foundation of a Wikipedia article and should be used for just about any noteworthy information (for example, if I'm writing about a person, then I should use sources about certain things they said or did and some good references to use include introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias), but of course, I failed to recognize this in the past. I do now though, and I've stated that countless times, but of course, I've always been barred from rejoining editing and will possibly remain so for good. Even then, I've also stated countless times that letting me rejoin would be the best way for me to prove myself as a competent editor. Let me give an example of sources I'd include for this article about On-set virtual production: For the part of the article listing films to have used this technology, I would add First Man^[3] and Barbie^[4], but that's just one example of how I can cite articles, and I doubt it'll do much to change your mind. If you want to talk more about how I can continue to possibly prove my worth as an editor, just let me know. Isaacarthy (talk) 00:00, 18 July 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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla, @NinjaRobotPirate, @Seraphimblade, @Rosguill, and any other moderators reviewing this: If I can be honest, I am confused about this website’s sourcing policies. I’ve read through them, I’ve been told about them a million times, yet when I think I have a grasp on them and have repeatedly promised to be more competent in my editing, it doesn’t work. This is why I’ve suggested having a period of probation where a more experienced editor/moderator can tell me more about how to be a good editor and to monitor my edits to make sure they’re reliable. Honestly, I feel like you’ve been too hard on my account because even after I’ve stated numerous times that I understand why I was blocked and I promise to not repeat the behavior, because I don’t understand every intricate detail of editing, I’m still barred from contributing to this website. Obviously I’m not expecting to be blocked any time soon, if not ever. I just want to try to give some perspective on this whole situation so that maybe I could continue learning how to be a good editor.Isaacarthy (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It was discovered in my talk page that someone else added the "Crazy Administrator" thing, so I'll just start by saying that wasn't me. In that case, this is a compromised account ever since then, and thus cannot be unblocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:06, 20 July 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.

You think you've been treated unfairly - after you did this, and were still given another chance to plead your case? (I don't see you address why you did that anywhere in your unblock request by the way.) Anyway, I think what might help your case would be to suggest a few edits you'd like to make, and provide the sources you'd use to support them. Feel free to post some below, and to ping me when you do so and I'll take a look when I have time. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit It was discovered in my talk page that someone else added the "Crazy Administrator" thing, so I'll just start by saying that wasn't me. But other than the suggestion I put in my response to Seraphimblade, I'm not entirely sure where I'd want to start with other edits. If I come up with something, though, I'll be sure to let you know. Isaacarthy (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)x[reply]

@Jpgordon Wait, so because someone pulled that stunt and it's been discovered that they've done so elsewhere, does that mean I'm permanently blocked? I'm still in control of this account, mind you.

Well, that edit was done using your account. You say that they've been discovered doing that, but I don't see any evidence of that - it sure as hell looks like you did it. Anyway, there are two possibilities. If it was you, your refusal to take responsibility for it doesn't inspire confidence; or, if someone else had control of your account at the time, that means that it was compromised at the time, and for all we know it still is. We don't unblock compromised accounts. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well even if it looks like I made that edit, I can assure you that it wasn't me. In that case, I tried my best, but it looks like I'm never getting unblocked for as long as time and space exist. Oh well. Isaacarthy (talk) 17:09, 21 July 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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla, @NinjaRobotPirate, @Seraphimblade, @Rosguill, @jpgordon, @Girth Summit and any other administrators reading this: It's been quite a while, hasn't it? Originally, I gave up on trying to appeal my block because since someone else tried to do that "CrazyAdministrator" thing, I have to suffer for their mistakes and remain banned for the rest of my days. And yet, I can't stop thinking about how unfair it is that not only is it believed that I made that edit, but that (as previously mentioned) I'm unable to make any progress in trying to prove that I can be a competent editor. I know exactly why I'm blocked. That fact has been made abundantly clear more times than I can count. And I've constantly stated over and over that I can make meaningful contributions to this site. But just when I think maybe I might be on to something, it doesn't work, and I have to stay barred from editing forever. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but that's because I kinda am. And I'm sure all of you I pinged aren't actively trying to be harsh and strike me down every chance I get, but I still feel that I've been treated extremely unfairly. I still want to prove I can be a good editor, and even if that seems hopeless to you all, it can happen. But even if this doesn't work and I end up still being seen as one of the worst editors on the site, I at least want to float the idea by you that a massive turnaround could still happen. Isaacarthy (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account was compromised, so it won't be unblocked. There is nothing more to do here. See WP:COMPROMISED. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 2 September 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.

@331dot So does that mean my account is banned permanently? Like, now there's absolutely zero chance I can edit ever again?

^ "Hans-Zimmer.com – Matthew Margeson". hans-zimmer.com. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
^ [example "example"]. N/A. Retrieved 4 June 2023. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
^ Desowitz, Bill (October 15, 2018). "Beyond Christopher Nolan: 'First Man' Redefines In-Camera VFX". IndieWire. Archived from the original on November 3, 2018. Retrieved July 17, 2023.
^ "Barbie". www.framestore.com. Framestore. Retrieved July 17, 2023.

[1] "Hans-Zimmer.com – Matthew Margeson". hans-zimmer.com. Retrieved 26 February 2023.

[2] [example "example"]. N/A. Retrieved 4 June 2023. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

[:2-3] Desowitz, Bill (October 15, 2018). "Beyond Christopher Nolan: 'First Man' Redefines In-Camera VFX". IndieWire. Archived from the original on November 3, 2018. Retrieved July 17, 2023.

[4] "Barbie". www.framestore.com. Framestore. Retrieved July 17, 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]