User talk:P4risAndStuff

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term vandalism and BLP violations, e.g. Camille Paulus. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Samsara (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to explain exactly why you did what you did to start, but I'm guessing your best bet will be our standard offer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:17, 23 January 2017 (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).

P4risAndStuff (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was originally blocked for long-term vandalism and BLP violations, which I admit to. I would now like to be unblocked, though. I promise to contribute to Wikipedia faithfully and non-disruptively if and when I get unblocked, and I do believe I should not have done the vandalism, I regret it. My edits on Wikipedia were mostly of good-faith and weren't bad, but those that weren't were mostly minor. Often, these kinds of contributions of mine were done for testing purposes, or were done out of 'boredom' and/or for 'fun' (immature of me, I admit, luckily I think differently nowadays) or whatever. I made a couple of now-deleted pages with random names either out of 'boredom' or just for 'fun' once again, for example. The most major acts of vandalism (and also violating of the BLP policy, in this case) that I did were my edits to Camille Paulus, a relatively minor/unpopular article, like others I made bad edits to - also pretty immature of me. Essentially, back in 2016, in the span of 5 days, I made various edits to the Camille Paulus page where I replaced random words in the article with other random words, and also generally put false information onto the page. I kept going when I realized that googling Camille Paulus brings up a card on the top right corner of the page, displaying the text from the page here on Wikipedia, and thought it would be 'funny' to further damage the article so that as much nonsense as I wanted would appear on the (")official(") card about Camille Paulus on Google, hoping that anybody who would end up googling Camille Paulus would see the nonsense and would get confused, for instance. I obviously did not think of the consequences of making those edits when I made them, and I should've before I made them. I've matured since then, learned from the mistakes I made before my block, and would like to go back to faithfully contributing to Wikipedia just to make minor or even major improvements to articles I come across during my free time, and only that (faithfully contributing, no vandalism, BLP violations, or pointless testings on random articles for instance). Thanks. User:P4risAndStuff / User talk:P4risAndStuff 23:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I obviously did not think of the consequences of making those edits when I made them, and I should've before I made them." - to me it seems you did think of the consequences of your edits. You knew your changes would appear on Google and were hoping that they'd confuse people. The only consequences you apparently did not expect were the ones to you. Huon (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2017 (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.

Nomination for deletion of Template:AddCSS

Template:AddCSS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rococks

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Rococks, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed 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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]