User talk:Sparkle1

April 2023

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 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).

Sparkle1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There needs to be reasons given here also there is no due process here. Their use of a wild indefinite block here is excessive a timed block and some explainatopns would be nice. Also before today there have be no incidents for months this is wildly excessive and I’d like to actually know why what has happened today has warranted such a response from others. I’d like tp I earn here but this is really feeling like heavy handed and hurt feelings. Yes people get upset on all sides but come on blocked forever is harsh and no hearing or due process is also harsh. Let’s talk about this in a weeks time when everyone has calmed down. Also ‘ editing for persistently making disruptive edits.’ Is not what is going on here this is a content dispute where that has gone cold and this just a couple of editors who at most need an interaction ban. This is not ‘editing for persistently making disruptive edits.’ This whole brew ha ha has not been in any article space and only on this talk space. Persistently making disruptive edits is wholly and 100% not what is occurring here. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Also, remember that indefinite does not mean infinite. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 23 April 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.

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).

Sparkle1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is patently not a case of not them, not me. I know I am not a shining example here but contentious issues get people heated and it seems to have got me under the collar today. It is a couple of heated users myself included who should probably have cold water thrown over them and not banned until some unknown point in the future. Some guidance and help here not a hammer to the face would be nice. Also, the original block reason is incorrect there is no pattern of disruptive editing. All you need to do is look back at the vast number of constructive edits including abiding by the discussion on the Navratalova page where it was agreed to go back to a version before any of the content in dispute was on the page. That reason for the block is wrong. I would like to know what the 'pattern of disruptive editing' between today and the above comments on this page asked me to tone it down was. This feels like re-litigating stuff already settled. Can I get more than single-sentence replies from admins please and can I get some actual help here instead of just punitive measures? An admin talking to me and the others involved here and going look you are having a bad day and you probably need to do x and Y is probably more constructive than goodbye forever (I know indefinite doesn't mean forever, but how without help support and guidance does it, not mean anything else?). If you notice above I was accused of calling someone a liar and on above and I tried to disengage and even went so far as to close off the topic entirely. I am not entirely sure what I am supposed to do in the face of being accused of calling someone a liar and then I myself try to disengage. Also, the entire content of today between myself and Valerie has only been on this talk page. I would simply like a final chance to show that with some help and support this is nothing more than a bad day. I really am at my wits end here having probably stupidly engaged on a bad day with Valeree in the first place. All this over a misunderstanding of where t seek help and advice, which result in a black until some unknown time in the future. That seems disproportionate and not helpful as you can clearly see my editing and contribution of articles is not what is being portrayed just by looking at it. Can we get a little good faith around here as opposed to throwing the book at me? I also apologise as I have yes been a prick today. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is still a WP:NOTTHEM unblock request. The diffs laid out here give a good indication of the pattern you're asking about, and as User:SarekOfVulcan says above, indefinite is indeed not an infinite block, it's just one that doesn't have a specific time limit. The block could be 2 days or it could be for the foreseeable future, but in order to be unblocked you need to show that you understand the reasons for the block and that the reasons that led to it will not continue if you are unblocked. This request does not do that. Aoidh (talk) 03:20, 24 April 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.

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).

Sparkle1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the reasons I am given haven’t been demonstrated and tenge the process I am being give ‘demonstrate you won’t do something while not being allowed to do anything therefore not being allowed to demonstrate you are doing something different. I can already hear the decline being written so before you do that can you set out what I’m supposed to do before giving me circularity of don’t do x by showing your not doing d while at the same time you are barred from demonstrating you won’t do x. Sparkle1 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Incoherent unblock request. Please do not misuse the unblock request procedure. You place yourself at risk of having your talk page access revoked if you continue to do so, after which you'd be facing the burden of regaining that access via WP:UTRS. Just so you're aware. El_C 11:31, 25 April 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.

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).

Sparkle1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So I’ve been banned 6 weeks and it seems that there is genuine dispute from users I’ve never seen before about why I was blocked. I understand that I have upset a few people but as was pointed out strong views do exist. I apologise to those who I have annoyed and upset. I am happy to be guided in how to better be a part of Wikipedia. I am though shocked to see strangers talking about me in the way that they have on both sides. It seems I have both detractors and supporters which is shocking to me. I think both sides have used unnecessary strong language and both have needlessly personalised this. If I could I would simply ask for a fresh start but that’s not open. I would if more subversive start a new account that no one here would know about but that is dishonest. So now everything is cooler I would like to be unblocked and allowed to post and edit again. If at the very least because I’m happy to engage in reasonable reconciliation. I don’t think it is sensible for anyone involved here to engage with me of i with them that seems unproductive and not going to lead to anything but more circularity. I hope to be allowed to edit again thank you all. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reasons for the block. I'm not quite ready to remove your access to this page yet, but you are getting close. You must tell us what you did wrong and what you will do differently. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 10 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.

Please delete under {{db-u1}} and WP:DELETEOWN

Sparkle1 (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit unfair on Explicit. How were they to know that it really was you if you were not logged in? Anyway, now that you are logged in, you can just tag them again and I'm sure the deletion will go through. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT possible as I only have editing access to this page. Since I was indef blocked I can only edit this page and I am pretty sure administrators are aware of that fact or if not then they should not be an administrator. It is also pretty obvious that I was trying to have my own pages deleted.

Please only comment if you are fully aware and 100% certain your comment content is correct.

Sparkle1 (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logging out to bypass editing restrictions like that is known as block evasion. Equivamp - talk 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then how does one go about getting those pages deleted? 15:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Sparkle1 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest thing to do would be not to get those pages deleted, but just to forget about them. You certainly shouldn't be complaining about an admin not knowing that it was you who tagged those pages for deletion. How could anyone possibly have known? Don't you have a basic theory of mind? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC) P.S. Do you really think that you are so important that every admin knows that you are blocked?[reply]

I really don’t understand what your trying to achieve with having your sandboxes deleted. Anyway, don’t removed block reviews on your currently active block. You’re NOT allowed to do that.T v x1 22:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:AVN Transgender

Template:AVN Transgender has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --wooden superman 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]