User talk:Stanislawlemlemlem

Welcome!

Hello, Stanislawlemlemlem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Japanese war crimes without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. --John (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislawlemlemlem, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Stanislawlemlemlem! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hey! John! Pls explain why I'm "vandalism only account!!!

Decline reason:

OK, "vandalism only account" may not be the right description. "Trying to impose a point of view and trying to suppress any information inimical to that point of view - only account" might be more accurate, so I shall alter the block reason in the log. However, there is no question of unblocking, as editing for such a purpose is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stanislawlemlemlem. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 21 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reason of Disruptive editing and edit warring is that I'm just a beginner using a mobile phone to edit. I only could edit a little at once. It might seemed disruptive, but there was no intension like "trying to suppress any information inimical to that point of view". It was similar situation about Edit warring. It took long time for me to edit. When I recomfirmed my edit after finishing to save, I found that my edit was not reflected. It looked as if error of internet connection for me. I didn't notice someone deleted my edit repeatedly. So I had no intension of edit war. Its just a misunderstanding. But I learned the dystem of Wikipedia, so I'll prepare and talk when I edit. Sock puppet is also similar reason. I changed account because former account became unavailable. I didn't know the mean of appeal, etc. And the unstable connection of mobile phone produced the unnoticed change of "log in" and "log out".Stanislawlemlemlem (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2014 (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.

Well, whether there was any intention of removing content inimical to a particular point of view or not, you certainly did so, repeatedly. As for checking after you edited and finding that your edit "was not reflected", it is surprising that it took you so long to check the edit you had made: in one case, an hour and fifty two minutes. Also, while this account has been blocked, you have created two sockpuppet accounts to evade the block, and have also evaded the block by editing without logging in, only posting this unblock request when those other accounts and your IP address had all been blocked. You will need to address that issue too, if you are to have any reasonable chance of being unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

My answer: 1) "it is surprising that it took you so long to check the edit you had made: in one case, an hour and fifty two minutes."
Perhaps in this case, I saw preview, saved and did daily bussiness or something like it. Then I re-checked again and surprised.

2) "Also, while this account has been blocked, you have created two sockpuppet accounts to evade the block, "
I just made only one new account. Did you confirm that I made "two new accounts"? I'm so confused...

3) "and have also evaded the block by editing without logging in,"
I don't know the exact reason why I edited without logging in. I thought I logged in. But after edit, I found I edited without logging in. Maybe connection trouble of mobile, or using other application, or switch on and off mobile. But it's unclear.

4) "only posting this unblock request when those other accounts and your IP address had all been blocked."
Because I didn't know this way, "unblock request". I'm beginner and was ignorant on this matter.
Stanislawlemlemlem (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unblock request that uses bad arguments is worse than none. Active sockpuppeting can't be explained by you being a beginner. Consider making a new unblock request in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

First Request Reason:
The reason of Disruptive editing and edit warring is that I'm just a beginner using a mobile phone to edit. I only could edit a little at once. It might seemed disruptive, but there was no intension like "trying to suppress any information inimical to that point of view". It was similar situation about Edit warring. It took long time for me to edit. When I recomfirmed my edit after finishing to save, I found that my edit was not reflected. It looked as if error of internet connection for me. I didn't notice someone deleted my edit repeatedly. So I had no intension of edit war. Its just a misunderstanding. But I learned the dystem of Wikipedia, so I'll prepare and talk when I edit. Sock puppet is also similar reason. I changed account because former account became unavailable. I didn't know the mean of appeal, etc. And the unstable connection of mobile phone produced the unnoticed change of "log in" and "log out".

Reply to EdJohnston
"Active sockpuppeting can't be explained by you being a beginner"
In general, beginbers do not always have shortage of knowledges in all areas equally. It was simple and easy way for me to creat new account. But Request for unblock was difficult, including to know its existance, for me at that time.
Stanislawlemlemlem (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have already been advised of WP:OFFER - this means that you cannot edit Wikipedia for a period of 6 months. You may not edit while logged out, and you may not create any accounts. During that time, perhaps you'll get a better connection method, as clearly editing by phone is causing technical issues, and a certain degree of competence is required to edit here. If you make even a single edit to Wikipedia during the 6 month period, the clock will be reset for a fresh 6 months. the panda ₯’ 11:12, 26 May 2014 (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.