User talk:Janwmwdxjk

Your User page

See WP:UP for what does and does not belong on your User page. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Save a copy of that table on your own computer, because it does not belong on your User page, and is at risk of being deleted without leaving a View history to allow recovery. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Football infobox timestamp

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Football career statistics table date

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the career stats table of a footballer, please make sure you update the date at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hey NinjaRobotPirate, :I am writing to appeal the block placed on my account for alleged sockpuppetry. The block says that Pilas69 is an alternate account of mine, however, I can promise you that account is not mine (I honestly have no idea what the password to that account is), and i'm assuring you, i definitely did not make this account to try and violate Wikipedia policies, at least intentionally. I am committed to positively contributing to Wikipedia and if i have violated any policies, then it was completely accidental and i apologise even if I did not mean to. Anyways, i went on the Pilas69 account to see it's past contributions, and i notice that it was created in May 2019 and only has 1 contribution (from Oct 2019). However, this account was created in May 2024 (a whole 5 years later) and has no connection to the 2019 account. I believe this situation is (politely) a whole misunderstanding and I apologise for the confusion. Now, I am aware that my Lawrence Gordon (character) contributions are listed as the IP address who made the first edits as I posted them without logging into this account, and I sincerely apologise for that. It was my mistake and I'm again sorry about any potential confusion. Before getting blocked, I was planning to add a new section to my Adam Stanheight article that has been took down (I'm assuming this is because of my block). Like I said before, I only want to positively contribute to this website and I am not any kind of internet troll or vandal. I respectfully request that you review my editing history, if necessary. Thank you. :Yours sincerely, Janwwdxjk. :)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sockpuppetry and WP:LOUTSOCK. The technical evidence is very, very clear. Yamla (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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

Dear Yamla,

Thank you for reviewing my unblock request. I understand that the technical evidence is considered "very clear". Could you please provide more specific details about this evidence? I would like to understand the situation fully and address any concerns. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Janwmwdxjk

No. I am not permitted to do so. --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

RE - Yamla, I understand that certain details cannot be shared due to privacy policies. Instead, could you please provide guidance on what steps I can take to address and resolve this block? I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and believe there has been a misunderstanding. Any advice or direction you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwmwdxjk (talk • contribs)

I am absolutely convinced you've been abusing multiple accounts. As such, I believe there's no action you can take to get this block lifted. You are free to contest this via another unblock request and a different admin will review your request. --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am writing this as I respectfully would like to request a reconsideration for my decline to be unblocked. As I have said before, the account I am being accused of owning (Pilas69) was created over five years ago and its only contribution was also nearly five years ago as well (this account was only made a few months ago); it seems to be very inactive and I believe I am being misunderstood. I can assure you that my account is intended solely for positive contributions to Wikipedia. I did not create this account with the sole purpose of trying to violate any rules. If I have violated any policies, I can assure that it was entirely unintentional and I sincerely apologise if I have caused confusion. As such, again, I politely ask for a reconsideration for the decline of my unblock request, which would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You are banned from editing here. The only path forward would be the standard offer with zero additional socking. I'm also revoking talk page access because the technical evidence of socking is so obvious that this is a complete waste of time. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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

A break

Dear Yamla,

I am writing this to sincerely apologise for any confusion I have caused or any policies I have unintentionally broken for the last few months really. As such, I think I’m gonna just take a brief break from Wikipedia. Personally, these last few months haven’t been the best for me and I do like editing on Wikipedia; to me it’s always been a website that’s always caught my eye and attention. Im interested in so many various different topics, but I believe this will have me judged. I promise that my sole purpose is to positively contribute to Wikipedia. One thing I can honestly 100% swear on is I genuinely have zero link whatsoever to the Pilas69 account; I can assure you even though almost everyone doesn’t believe me. The only explanation I do have for this is that I live in an apartment so maybe the ip addresses are shared (remember the account was created over 5 years ago and a lot has happened since then). Other than that, I honestly have no other links to the account, so you’ll just have to take my word for it. As I said before, I did not come on to this website with the sole purpose of trying to violate any rules and break policies; I am definitely not an internet troll or vandal. If you think any of my edits have been disruptive, I'm sorry. When I come back, I want a clean start. The first thing I would like to try and do is get my Adam Stanheight article restored as I felt quite proud of that article as it went up, especially since it likely would still be up now if this hadn’t happened. On the night I got blocked, I was planning to create a new "Concept and creation" or development section to the article that would expand it and make it better (as I did with my Lawrence Gordon (character) article that also got took down: I had a development section). I have good intentions for this website but I do tend to overthink a bit, which may lead me to doing more unintentional harm than good. I'm genuinely sorry for all I have caused. I also hope you don’t think I have bad feelings towards anyone or my intentions for editing are bad either. If you’ve made it to the end, thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

Yours sincerely. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwmwdxjk (talk • contribs)

I literally caught you evading your block and lying about it yesterday with Skghssejgjg. There's nothing unintentional about this. You've worked hard to demonstrate you aren't willing to be honest with us and don't have good intentions. Don't ping me again. --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

RE: Yamla, I am aware that doing what I did yesterday was a stupid and unintelligent thing to do and there's no excuses for it. I was being dishonest and a bit shady, which was wrong and I sincerely apologise. You are 100% right, and I don't blame you for thinking my apology wasn't genuine, but believe me, I'm sincerely sorry. I assure you my intentions are good; if they were really that bad, I definitely would not have created an informative article about a film character. I probably would be an internet troll and would have vandalised Wikipedia articles many times by now. I honestly ain't about that. Also, I could've easily came on here and wrote a salty, immature and grudge-holding message. I could have whined and moaned about this whole situation as if I was butthurt. But instead, I realised that what I was doing was probably bad and rubbing people the wrong way, owned up and apologised like what I should have been doing from the start. I made the correct response, which was taking responsibility, didn't I? There's no point for us going back and forth about something that isn't really that big of a deal. It's not fun for me and I can imagine its not fun for you either; again, this is my fault and my apologies for this. Let's just leave all of this in the past and just move on from this. Again, I apologise for what I did yesterday in particular as it wasn't smart and i take FULL responsibility. So can you please just accept my apology at the very least?...

Here's the fundamental problem: Yamla didn't ask for your apology. Yamla asked to be left alone by affirming that they did not want to be pinged again. Instead of respecting this request, you went ahead and pinged an editor who did not wish to interact with you (the ping has since been removed). Trust is hard-earned, but easily spent. If there was any chance you might have convinced someone that maybe you really aren't the Pilas69 account, you destroyed that chance through your deliberate actions. You went ahead and created a sockpuppet account and then blatantly lied about it three times (two unblock requests and the edit summary for the first one). There is no quicker way to destroy the community's trust, and I would be shocked if there's any administrator willing to trust in you and unblock you in the short term.

So the question is: what do you want? If you just would like to move on, there are many worthy projects in this world to work on, very few of which will care that you're a blocked Wikipedia editor or anything that happened in these discussions. If you would like to edit English Wikipedia again, it's going to be tough, but your best chance is to be a well-respected poster on another project like Simple English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, neither of which are projects you are currently blocked from. If you came back to English Wikipedia in a year or two years or five years with an impressive editing history on another project, no issues of conduct, and no evidence of sockpuppet accounts over that timeframe, I suspect you would have a very good chance of being unblocked. But if you're hoping to simply undo this block by finding just the right combination of words, just the right argument to make, you're unlikely to be successful. Whatever you decide, I wish you nothing but the best in your future endeavors. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

RE: First of all, thank you CoffeeCrumbs for your response. I haven’t had time to respond until now. I know Yamla asked me not to mention them again, but I thought that nobody else would see this. Anyways, I assure you that these messages are not an excuse to get unblocked: this is actually me being genuine. One more thing I would like to make an inquiry about is do you think it would be possible for my Adam Stanheight article to be restored? It was a good article (in my opinion) that I was planning to expand and make bigger before I got blocked. Even though I'm not sure it will get restored, which is kind of jarring. But thanks for your time. 👍

The article was redirected because multiple editors don't believe there's enough justification for a standalone article and the sources did not really make the case, either; there's very little out there that's just about this character. I don't feel differently, nor could I proxy for you; proxying for a blocked editor would end up with me getting, at the very least, some sharp words! I just wanted to lay out what your options are. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

RE: Really? When I looked at it, it said that my edit got reverted because of my block. It did get redirected when it was first put out there, but the editor restored it as it was a major improvement over other attempts at a Stanheight article and it said block evasion was the reason why it was deleted. But I don't know, I believe the article would still be up now if this situation hadn't happened.