User talk:Jughellcaster

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have 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. Rehsarb (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Tilting at windmills (disambiguation), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. It is not a list of examples. See MOS:DAB. And your edit summaries are not helping you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Please explain how me adding dialogue from a television show to this page is “disruptive, inappropriate” and “hard-to-read”. If you care so deeply, explain to me how it should be written. The television series Riverdale, its production company The CW and Cole Sprouse himself do not promote any “inappropriate” behaviour. And if it isn’t a list of examples, tell me what it is then Mr. Erik.

Sincerely,

Jughellcaster Jughellcaster (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is spoken in many contexts, it is not needed to list lines of every TV show, film, song, on a disambiguation page. ... discospinster _talk 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic you should take down “The Eternal Quest”, it is not needed to list every alternative title to every TV show, film, song, on a disambiguation page. Jughellcaster (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 21:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My blocking.

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).

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

Request reason:

The reasoning for my blocking was something along the dialogue of “clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia”, however, I believe I should be unblocked from editing as I simply wanted to share some fun information from a television show I hold dear to me, I understand what I did was “disruptive” but I do not think it was worth being dubbed “inappropriate” and I genuinely do not understand what Paul Erik meant by what he said. Riverdale is a show that endorses representation of all races, ethnicities, gender identities, sexual identities, etc. As for Cole Sprouse and The CW, they also endorse and stand for what Riverdale represents. I hereby declare that if my blockage is removed I will not even bother to engage nor simply look with/at the “Tilting at Windmills” disambiguation page. Sincerely, Jughellcaster.Jughellcaster (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That purpose is not what disambiguation pages are for, they are for differentiating articles that either have the same title or where the term is a plausible search term(such as an alternative or additional title). In any event, you don't say what contributions to the encyclopedia you will make instead. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2024 (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.

Links to other Wikipedia articles or pages is best done by simply placing the title of the target in double brackets, for example [[Joe Biden]] displays as Joe Biden. This keeps posts cleaner and avoids locking readers into a version of Wikipedia that may not be their preferred(mobile/app or desktop). 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Punish me how you must, for I have learned my lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jughellcaster (talk • contribs)

Blocks are not a punishment, they are a means of preventing disruption to Wikipedia. You can be unblocked when you provide sufficient assurance that the disruption will not resume and that you will make constructive contributions. Part of that is knowing what edits you intend to make; once you know what edits you will make, you may make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, let me rephrase old message, prevent my disruption how you must. Haha! Perhaps I’ll just edit on pages for niche films I enjoy that don’t necessarily get a lot of contributions. Y’know, just like the production and release sections — I could get a lot of information on these from interviews with the cast/crew and such.

Regards,

Jughellcaster Jughellcaster (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]