User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Advice

I have some friendly advice. We are very accepting of occasional mistakes here. However as you have seen a long term pattern of repeating the same mistake is disruptive and can result in blocks regardless of how good your intentions are. While focusing on your mistakes and trying to avoid them in the future is a good idea, it has not been working so far. May I suggest an alternative approach where you simply recognize when people are disagreeing with you and stop what you are doing and engage them in discussion on the talk page.

If you had stopped when you saw that you were being reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page I doubt you would have ended up blocked. We are a community and one of the greatest benefits we have is that we have other editors to share information with us. Instead of arguing by reverting argue through debate on the talk page. You will find out soon who is right and who is wrong that way. Chillum 21:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I also advise that you do not delete or archive content so rapidly from your talk page, I was pinged on here but just two hours later the conversation has been archived without me ever finding it or having a chance to respond, it suggests that you are trying to hide things. Theroadislong (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Is there any chance of reducing the block or does it have to be the length specified? Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Tea, this request would have a much greater chance of being honoured if you gave a clear plan on how you intend to improve matters. Chillum 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I should say hello to User:TeaLover1996 at this point. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you want me to join this discussion, TeaLover. I'm of the opinion that you have repeatedly shown an inability or unwillingness to change, and have been given enough chances. Personally, I will not be unblocking early, no matter what assurances you give, as a full two weeks off might, just might, focus your mind on how thin the ice is that you're on. However, if you come up with some assurances that satisfy another admin, you just need to use {{unblock}}; I don't need to agree, and don't ask to be consulted. Whatever another admin wants to do is fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Improvement

@Chillum: to improve my editing in the future I will:

• Look at content that has been added or changed for references each time before reverting (as I was right to revert the first time, but when I reverted the second time I was notified by Mattythewhite that there was a reference at the time)
• Take a in–depth look at Wikipedia's Policies on Reverting, Help on Reverting.
• Discuss issues on the relevant talk page instead of edit warring.

Thanks for your time. 22:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Forgot to ping, sorry. TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I don't think I need to be heavily involved in this discussion. But one piece of advice to an admins discussing with you: I suggest a necessary, but not sufficient, condition would be a 1RR restriction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2015 (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).

TeaLover1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have made assurances that I will be careful in future TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Does "strongly committed to this encyclopedia" mean that previously you weren't and were, basically, vandalising? This does not make any sense. I feel that you're still not getting this: people have serious problems with your behavior and you're still not even acknowledging them (what's in this request and below is not an acknowledgement, it's "oh shit, I need to say something to get unblocked"). Considering all this, it seems to me that the best course of action would be to let you sit out the whole duration of this block to make it perfectly clear that this is no joke and your next block will be indefinite. And I'm personally prepared to indef you next time you archive a thread immediately after replying because that's equivalent to wiping your ass with fellow editors' messages. Max Semenik (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (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.

How now is different from the previous times you made this kind of promises? Max Semenik (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@MaxSem: Well I am strongly committed to this encyclopedia thats how it's different TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So does that mean before this you really didn't care at all? Or that you were sort of committed, but after repeated and lengthening blocks you are now strongly committed? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could put it like that TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@MaxSem: You wouldn't be able to just block me though for removing content from my talk page if I am archiving it then I can, there isn't a policy that says I can't and plus WP:BLANKING states that I can. TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I totally can block you for disruptive behavior, of which your talk page modus operandi is part of. Max Semenik (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@MaxSem: You can't as removing talk page messages isn't disruptive. TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I would quit and serve the remainder of your block before you get an Indef block. You completely miss the point all the time. JMHamo (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Not really the point, TeaLover. If the worst of your behavior when the block expires is blanking talk page threads about butterflies and rainbows quickly, then a block shouldn't occur. If you resume blanking messages that you're doing something wrong without satisfactorily addressing the problem, like doing more than saying "OK, thanks for the information" or something, then it is a problem, as it is a part of the pattern of disruption you have, and I think that's what MaxSem is trying to say. This really is your last chance to change the way you edit here, TL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Once the block has expired, I will be archiving all these dicussions. TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and JMHamo: Is there anything to stop me becoming a good editor? TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean other than continued carelessness? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop pinging me for the same silly question, over and over. It has been answered by many people many times over the last few months. Yes, right now you are not a good editor. There are several things preventing you from being a good editor, which you do not appear to be willing or able to do. Stop trying to be a hall monitor, stop trying to "enforce" any policies, because you do not seem to understand them. Start contributing in ways where you aren't trying to tell other people what to do. Go slowly, be careful rather than quick, and back off when told you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not a good editor... in my opinion anyway. JMHamo (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I mean can I be with time TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering that you continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, even after being told what you are doing wrong and how to correct it, the answer is, sadly, no. I can't see you ever being a good editor. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 21:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Better editing

@Qed237: While I am blocked should I take an explicit look at Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines so that I can improve my editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you should stop trolling and sit out your block quietly. Theroadislong (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm looking forward to his RfA. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Do you know any users who would be willing to adopt me.

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I won't be submitting one for some time, probably once my editing improves. 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You should forget the Admin thing right away as there is no way you will be an admin at anytime. And yes, you're a bad editor, been watching you for quite some time, terrible to be honest. Your questions are trolling (always the same), no other way to spin this. Kante4 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)