User talk:I would be bias if it was allowed

Welcome!

Hello, I would be bias if it was allowed, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar advice

OK, that was the formal, template driven welcome above, but this is a piece of direct personal advice. Your username really is a bad one. No doubt you're trying to be clever. That can sometimes work, but on a fairly serious site like Wikipedia, I wouldn't recommend it. More importantly, "bias" is a noun, not an adjective. Maybe that distinction doesn't mean anything to you, but I can assure you it makes you look to most English speakers like someone who is very bad at writing (and probably speaking) English. The correct form of what you appear to trying to say is "I would be biased if it was allowed". I strongly recommend abandoning this user name, and inventing a better one. (NOT what I just wrote.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how would I do that? I managed to make a typo probably because of phone autocorrect being dodgy and whatnot. I am a fluent English speaker and speak it as a first language. I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have some difficulty regarding someone who uses bias as an adjective as fluent in the language. You can just abandon this user name, and invent a better, simpler, more sensible one. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I asked, how do I abandon it? 120.21.234.249 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop using it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not logged in rn as I'm accessibg from phone Gmail but how the hell you do it? Where do I find it 120.21.234.249 (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hi I would be bias if it was allowed! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Australian Labor Party several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Australian Labor Party, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be a decent person, similar to myself, even same city. But I'd rather you yourself getting a consensus, as multiple people have complained about the ideology and you are the one preventing it from being changed I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of filling a report for you violating WP:3RR at WP:3RR/N. I suggest you self-revert. The current ideologies/political position might have some people disagreeing with it, however there have been many more saying any change needs consensus and you can't run roughshod over those just because you prefer your version. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 08:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2024 (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).

I would be bias if it was allowed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been active as a different user and just realized I could appeal this thing

I've been blocked for a while now and have been editing with IPs for the past month or so and haven't been warned; also the fact that I was reported and banned AFTER I stopped making 'disruptive edits' (despite these being in good faith) I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, users are typically blocked after they make disruptive edits. We can't read your mind and know that you intend to stop doing so. That you have gotten away with editing via IP doesn't make it acceptable. This doesn't address the reasons for the block. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2024 (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.

You intiallly placed your edit request in the smaller section header window, which causes formatting issues- please place all edits in the larger edit window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic" to edit this page. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2024 (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).

I would be bias if it was allowed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

continuation to this mayhem Firstly, I had absolutely no idea I had this account. I'm pretty confused, but I'll appeal both here. The second bit is that the edits to the Australian Labor Party were stopped prior to me being blocked from editing; i.e. I wasn't actually making nasty edits by then. I think three or four days before I was banned, I had stopped (can't specify, just check logs and clarify with me) and prior to closing this, please wait on a response, because if you need something explained, I'll certainly do that I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC) :Oh, and I don't mean this account. I mean the Wikipedia account creation service one. I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You claim you had stopped being disruptive "three or four days" before you were blocked. But this is obviously not true. You made this edit and were blocked less than 90 minutes later. Yamla (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2024 (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.

My bad

I made a mistake, I apparently did do edits to Labor on the day. That's my mistake. I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla I made this area less than twenty minutes after because I made a mistake. I do realise I was stupid for just thinking 'hey, you get consensus' it was dumb, and stubborn. If you look at the 2024 United States presidential election talk page, I was actually a major contributor in getting RealClearPolitics removed (was 27.133) and wasn't actually making disruptive edits. I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make a new, truthful, unblock request. A different admin will review it. --Yamla (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2024 (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).

I would be bias if it was allowed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry.

Decline reason:

Evading your block is not a good idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2024 (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.

So, I've tried to appeal multiple times now, the last time based on an argument that was stupid and invalid (I was wrong, and I realised it after making the post and couldn't edit it properly) so I'll give this one final go.

I'd like to be unbanned for a few reasons. Firstly, I do realise I was quite stupid with the Australian Labor Party edits, as I was new, stubborn, and ignorant. I refused to listen to reason, and I won't do that next time.

Secondly, I have been (somewhat) active on Wikipedia since my ban, using the 27.33... IP on the talk page of the 2024 United States presidential election, (as well as a few other IPs due to internet/location issues) to create constructive conservation about the removal of RealClearPolitics, which has been done.

Thirdly, I've actually looked through the rules and figured out that 'hey, if I wanna remove/add something substantial, unless the source is dodgy/not there, I actually need to ask about this!' and I've had a bit of a revelation as a result of that, trying not to edit things where they aren't constructive/needed/without consensus (I have edited some things without consensus, like the list of prog Rock artists page, by saying A Night At The Opera is also prog Rock, especially Bo Rhap, but that's an easily available source I just didn't remember to add; the other things I edited was a bunch of punctuation for the abortion referendums all around the US, as well as some minor edits here and there to other things)

Fourthly, regarding my username, if my ban appeal is accepted, I'll make a new Wikipedia account, not use this one, and give it a far better username than this.

All in all, I'm hoping that this ban is accepted. Thank you! I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice for WP:LOUTSOCK Violations

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked TPA because of the block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]