User talk:Tigerdude9/Archive04

October 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a second FA nomination immediately after the September 11 one was closed and the reasons why it was doomed to failure were explained to you above is highly disruptive conduct. I note that you'd made no substantive edits to the United Airlines Flight 175 prior to today, and did not start a discussion over whether it was a viable FA with the editors with a longer history with the article on its talk page. Combined with your attempt to classify an article as a FA yourself a few weeks ago, it is obvious that you do not understand what FA status means and how the FA process works, and are making no efforts to educate yourself or work collaboratively with other editors. When the block expires, please take the time to familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia's article assessment processes work and what is expected at each level of article quality. If you ask for advice, as you should, you'll find no shortage of editors who'll be happy to offer help. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick-D's action - it's disruptive to keep making out-of-process nominations without having done the very substantial amount of sustained work that's needed for FA nomination. This is yet another example of a series of actions that you've undertaken after explicitly being told not to do them. If this continues, you may be blocked indefinitely. If you won't listen to advice from other editors, or if you decide to do something anyway after being told not to, you're wasting everybody's time, including your own. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I'm disruptive and I deliberately disobey instructions. I'm a failure at Wikipedia and I only make a small amount of successful edits (I can still chat on my own talk pages at least)

. Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 1[edit]

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).

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I started doing the big stuff too early, which I shouldn't have done. And it can be hard for me to tell what is disruptive and what is not I need to read more slowly and think twice. On top of it all it's hard to listen to information. I just want to do the right thing, but I often fail(I'm pretty sure this is going to be declined)! Tigerdude9 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're right, I'm declining this because you've consistently failed to learn from experience. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2018 (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.

Appeal 2[edit]

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).

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are correct about my constant disruptive editing, about how I consistently failed to learn, and all of my wrongdoings, but I need to talk about me. I'm still struggling with wikipedia. I was not aware if my edits being disruptive, until it was too late, and I should have actualy listened to you. I should start actually taking advice. Do I know my actions were wrong? Yes, I do. Will I promise that I won't do it again? No, I can't make a promise, but I will try very hard. Will I end up doing disruptive editing again? Unfotunately yes, but hopefully with less likely chance of it happening. I read the block appeal guide, and I realized how to make a better response. I will not nominate UA175 for FA class review again, until I hear from others. I have made some talk pages before I've certain made edits, and I should start doing this more if I fear that an edit would turn out disruptive. Remember, I joined to help, and I want to help. Tigerdude9 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2018 (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.

If you agree to not nominate any article for a FA candidacy until other editors who are either highly experienced with that article or are one of the FA mentors agree that the article is ready, I'd be prepared to lift the block (or have another admin do this if they review this request before I can respond). This is a pretty easy mistake to avoid. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will try to avoid this mistake. Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no try. Do, or do not. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will avoid this mistake. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opposite of what is being asked. If you continue to equivocate on this, or on the other issues that have arisen with your edits, any future block would be longer or indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: Sorry! I meant to say "I WILL avoid this mistake." I just got confused for a second. I'm aware that equivocating on this or my other issues will result in a longer or indefinite block. The first thing I'm going to do when my block ends/gets appealed is to start a talk page on United Airlines Flight 175 on why the article should be FA, I will not nominate it until I have more opinions. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, the last thing you should do when you're unblocked is to start talking about FAs. Multiple experienced editors have already told you that it's not ready, and your actions of yesterday indicate that you don't understand this. That's one reason why you're blocked. The key to being unblocked and staying that way is to stop doing the things you were blocked for. What you just said isn't "you agree to not nominate any article for a FA candidacy until other editors who are either highly experienced with that article or are one of the FA mentors agree that the article is ready." Not just "more opinions." Don't try to alter the terms of the offer. Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: Than I will not do that. I will remove the request from the box when my block ends or if I'm unblocked early. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I'm extending the block to a week because of the file noted below that you uploaded last night, after being directly told not to upload non-free files. The source file is clearly copyrighted. I'm also recommending to the next reviewing admin that the request above be declined. Acroterion (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this time I actually had permission! Did you read the file details before it got deleted? And where can I even find the reduced image? I could even give you a screenshot showing proof! Except I can't because I'm still blocked! Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were plainly told not to upload non-free files. You did it anyway. Evidence of permission doesn't involve your personal assertion, it means that the copyright holder has to provide permission via OTRS so that we can all verify it. Since you appear to continue to test boundaries and look for loopholes or exceptions, I think a lengthy block is needed to make you understand that we're serious about this. You aren't competent to navigate image use requirements, you have tried to shortcut the FA process disruptively, and you keep circling back to your personal rankings of air disasters. Acroterion (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: Look I know we don't see eye to eye, (yes you might think this is a loophole). I'm autistic and you are not (even though you worked with other autistic users). I'm going to be honest, this isn't the right thing to do: block someone who is struggling. I was considering asking those people that Nick-D recommended for me, but in order to do that I have to be unblocked. Please. This is urgent. I am DEAD SERIOUS. I'm anxious to fix my wrong doings. I want to be trusted. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: You know what? Forget it. I'm just going to wait for my ban to end. I apologize for any arguments we had or anything I said that was offensive. And again, I apologize for all my wrongdoings. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's mad at you, we just want you to edit productively and to stay away from activities that have gotten you in trouble. That means rigid adherence to advice, not offering to "try," or to wait a few days to do it again. If you don't, you won't be able to edit the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the extension of this block. Tigerdude9, if you have health issues which affect your engagement with Wikipedia, I'd very strongly encourage you to take a careful approach and ask other editors for advice. The Wikipedia teahouse page is a good informal place to discuss how to approach articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reassuring me. the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 got me even more anxious to be unblocked so I could fix any typos or mistakes, but I'm going to take your advice Nick-D and make a careful approach. So I'm just going to keep calm as best as I can. RIP to all the 189 people on board who lost their lives. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the Official Editor of Air Accidents, and the content will get written with or without you. Please step away from the encyclopedia, and when your block expires you should not take a leading role in editing air accident articles. Acroterion (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: I know that, but yet I end up that way. I can't walk away because my health issues don't feel to be improving. Last night I deleted and re-downloaded the Wikipedia app on my phone multiple times. Fortunately, I took Nick-D's advice and I was going to start a discussion on the tea house on how to approach an article, unfortunately my block prohibits me from doing so. I could do it here, but it doesn't feel proper as other people usually talk messages here, not me (except on rare occasions). So I have to wait until my block is over. Update: I fucked up again (sorry for swearing). Look below. Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 3[edit]

I'm sorry it came to this, but please PLEASE, understand! I know we don't see eye to eye, but still!

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).

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was given advice to go to the tree house and start a discussion about how to approach an article, but I can't start that section until I'm unblocked, I've been told to "step away from Wikipedia," and I tried but failed because I'm suffering emotional issues regarding my block that are hard for me to let go. I'm autistic and I'm an impatient person (even if I didn't have autism I would still be like this). Me and other users can have trouble seeing eye to eye with each other. I was struggling before I was blocked, and I felt that it was not the right thing to do: blocking a struggling person. I fear my block will get extended even further. I know the block is necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but is no longer necessary because I *# understand I have been blocked for: disruptive editing and uploading a non free work *# will not continue to cause damage or disruption in the future, and *# will make contributions that are actually useful. Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this addresses the reason for your block. And saying you can't step away sounds like a threat. Your emotional problems are your problem, not ours I'm afraid. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2018 (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.

@Yamla: I should have been more specific. I did not know that "I can't step away" would sound like a threat, and I did not intend for it to sound like once, Plus, I know that my health is my own issue. Believe me, I actually tried, and deleted the app from my phone, and played games in an attempt to forget it, but it stayed on my mind. So I reinstalled the app. And if you read the previous unblock attempts you'll know why I got blocked. It's just hard for me to see eye to eye. I just want to make my fix my wrongdoings right now! It can be hard for you to understand me, and it can be hard for me to understand others. I'm usually a nice guy and I don't want to put up a fight, but that's not always the case unfortunately. The stuff under number one was tge reason I got blocked. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed talkpage access, not as a sanction, but to allow this user some time away from WP and this talkpage, since it's clear that they're not going to let go voluntarily. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23101 was submitted on Oct 31, 2018 20:19:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]