User talk:Sausagea1000

Welcome

Hello, Sausagea1000, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Sausagea1000, good luck, and have fun. DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1986

I have ended the discussion on Talk:1986 as it wasn't getting anywhere. We will not be changing the article to make anything more "positive" in your view but I just want to make sure that you understand this one thing:

There really is no such thing as an article thumbnail. We do not have any code that makes an image into "the thumbnail". Whatever you think "the thumbnail" is, whatever you are seeing on your screen, it is not something that everybody else sees and it is not something that is chosen by Wikipedia so there is no point in asking us to change it.

I hope this is clear. If you are still having difficulty understanding how we do things on Wikipedia please have a look at the links in the welcome message above. They should help. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Suspension_railway

You made a suggestion at Talk:Suspension_railway and I have asked for some clarification. Please respond. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 1986. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Terrorism in the United States, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. [1] SummerPhD^v2.0 14:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at First aid. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Holographic Versatile Disc are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 18:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Apollo 11, you may be blocked from editing. TJRC (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at CNN, you may be blocked from editing. David J Johnson (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at CNN. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CNN. The article is about CNN - Cable News Network, based in Atlanta - please stop changing to a different organisation. David J Johnson (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Widr (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at World Trade Center (2001-present) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. David J Johnson (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed your article edits and talk page posts I have concluded that they are far more disruptive and time-wasting than they are productive. I am therefore blocking you indefinitely. Any appeal should include how you're going to contribute constructively to Wikipedia if you are unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for my disruptive editing. I was being too informal on the article World Trade Center (2001-present), so I was blocked from editing. If I am unblocked, I will make constructive edits.

Decline reason:

No, you were not "being too informal"; you unnecessarily put a link through a redirect, described it as a typo, and repeated this edit when reverted. This is disruptive editing. Further, if the comments you made here are accurate, then they show that you did not read the articles with understanding before editing and it suggests you may have a lack of the necessary competence to edit on here. Just Chilling (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2017 (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 explain this edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that a broadcasting tower in Canada found here was the broadcasting tower for CNN. Also, When I first saw CNN, I thought it was the main news network in Canada and the United States. Sausagea1000 (talk)

The comments were accurate. Sausagea1000 (talk)

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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know that putting a link through a redirect is not progressive. Therefore, I will test the link to see if it goes through redirect, then if it does, modify the link. About being formal. I have found that being formal is better on Wikipedia, and that informal editing is disruptive.

Decline reason:

You are either trolling or lack sufficient competence to edit here. Either way, the block should not be lifted. Yamla (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2017 (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 explain the situation at Talk:Suspension railway. You seem to have thought part of a video game is a real mass transit system. (Incidentally, just to clarify, I am still not a bot. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the transit system in the game Half-Life was based off a real place. Sausagea1000 (talk)

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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My unblock request has to be accepted at one point, as I am new to Wikipedia. New and unskilled users, as mentioned here do not need to be blocked, they are just new to Wikipedia, and may not know as much as older users. My edits on CNN, Talk:Suspension_railway, Talk:1986 and World Trade Center (2001-present) were clear newbie acts, and they will not happen again.

Decline reason:

There's a difference between "newbie acts" and "trolling". Introducing the kinds of errors of fact you put into CNN is not a "newbie act". Huon (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2017 (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.

I have revoked talk page access to prevent this user from continuing to troll. Another admin will be along shortly to review the block and may choose to reinstate talk page access. If not, WP:SO would apply six months from today's date, though the user would have to use WP:UTRS at that time. --Yamla (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20186 was submitted on Dec 29, 2017 19:51:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20188 was submitted on Dec 29, 2017 22:36:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20318 was submitted on Jan 13, 2018 15:00:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20322 was submitted on Jan 14, 2018 07:50:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22003 was submitted on Jul 07, 2018 18:04:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22006 was submitted on Jul 07, 2018 20:27:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23829 was submitted on Jan 26, 2019 11:51:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23841 was submitted on Jan 27, 2019 01:00:59. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey, it's me again. I have grown up now. If I am unblocked, I will stop making disruptive edits, will use talk pages appropriately and stop edit warring, and stop useless edits. When I first joined, I made many dumb edits which caused disruption and edit warring on several pages, resulting in my block. I made many unblock appeals on my talk page which failed to address the disruptive behaviour that resulted in my block. After several appeals, my talk page access was revoked. I then made several UTRS appeals, which resulted in more than 1 UTRS ban. Hopefully I have addressed everything that resulted in my block, TPA revokation and UTRS bans, and hopefully, I will be unblocked and be able to make constructive edits.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2021 (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.

Checkuser tools show no evidence of recent block evasion (this is a good thing). --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna sockpuppet because that would only decrease my chances of being unblocked. Sausagea1000 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I might make another appeal in the future. Sausagea1000 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain?

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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Where is the rule which says that any unblock appeal which has been open for more than 2 weeks must be declined?

Decline reason:

It is an unwritten rule. PhilKnight (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2021 (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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey, it's me again. I have grown up now. If I am unblocked, I will stop making disruptive edits, will use talk pages appropriately and stop edit warring, and stop useless edits. When I first joined, I made many dumb edits which caused disruption and edit warring on several pages, resulting in my block. I made many unblock appeals on my talk page which failed to address the disruptive behaviour that resulted in my block. After several appeals, my talk page access was revoked. I then made several UTRS appeals, which resulted in more than 1 UTRS ban. Hopefully I have addressed everything that resulted in my block, TPA revokation and UTRS bans, and hopefully, I will be unblocked and be able to make constructive edits.

Decline reason:

The list of your contributions is entirely public and can be found at Special:Contributions/Sausagea1000. There is no need to be unspecific, and the unspecificity of the previous appeals led to their repeated decline. Please describe, concisely but precisely, what exactly you did ("making disruptive edits" is unspecific), how exactly you have used talk pages inappropriately, and why we can be sure that it won't happen again. Please also provide specific (!), credible examples for future contributions that you'd like to make, but that are currently prevented by the block. Please have a look at the community portal or the Task Center if you need ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (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.

It's not a scam. It's actually helpful to you. A stale unblock request at Category:Requests for unblock can appear to those checking the list as one that has been passed over by multiple admins for some reason, so they don't bother clicking to see. That doesn't meant that's what happened here -- unblock requests also go stale simply because there's a backlog. The solution is a new unblock request. In this case you can just copy the old unblock text into this new unblock request. I'd do it soon, as the current unblock request is not good. :) —valereee (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did it. Hopefully an admin can actually notice this appeal. Sausagea1000 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2021 (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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With the amount of information you need just to unblock me, it would probably be easier to just create a new account. You said the list of my contributions is public, so why can't you just READ IT? Anyway, here's my appeal: The inappropriate talk page use was talk page spam, I was making irrelevant comments which just wasted both your and my time. Not something I would do nowadays. While I can't predict the future, my edits will mostly involve clearing up misspellings and grammar errors, updating outdated information, but NOT by nitpicking and edit warring, as I did several times, such as the WTC article, and clearing up blatant vandalism.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2021 (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.

"it would probably be easier to just create a new account" err no that would be sockpuppetry and would get that account blocked as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise you are minimodding, right? Sausagea1000 (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I started reading this page, I was about to contact the original blocking admin and asking if we should unblock you. Then as I read, I swung 180 to just straight-out declining: your (post-UTRS) unblock "I've grown up" appeal was fine, and usually the standard offer would have kicked in without issue. But here we have you being impatient and discourteous, and then You do realise you are minimodding, right? directed at @Lavalizard101:...who is both an experienced editor who knows the rules and, in their particular case, has abundant reason to know the issues socking causes with getting ultimately unblocked.

"Minimodding" is the main modding on Wikipedia, but beyond your misconceptions that it would be a bad thing, this, coupled with your issues earlier on the page, make me think that while you have improved, when things didn't run smoothly (as happens) you'd fall back into negative behaviour.

So why no straight decline? Well, I thought that having held both views, I'd leave it to you to convince me (or another admin, should I remain undecided) that you can be extended some rope. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed that minimodding was bad, because it is not tolerated in most places. Additionally, there is no policy about minimodding, which should probably be written considering that it could affect something as large as a user's block appeal. As for the sockpuppetry I threatened, it was just supposed to be an exaggeration. As mentioned earlier in this page, I do not intend to sockpuppet as it would only decrease my chances of being unblocked. But still, I have no idea why so much information is needed, but I'm going off topic now, so I'll just end it here. Sausagea1000 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I remain unsure, but insufficiently so to reject the appeal. I will leave it to another reviewing admin - for the sake of our impatient requester (and as another admin may have passed over seeing my comment), any procedural close (if applicable) should be based off 2-weeks from now Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my last unblock request.

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).

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hopefully this is my last unblock request. My other appeals were denied because no admin saw them, but hopefully this one gets seen. If I am unblocked, I will stop spamming talk pages with unrelated stuff and not nitpick and edit war with others, as this is not helpful. While I can't predict my edits in the future, they will mostly involve stuff like clearing up spelling and grammar errors, updating outdated information, and clearing up blatant vandalism.

Decline reason:

Per below — Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2021 (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.

I'd just like to note that I saw this appeal and decided not to review it. That's because all I personally could do after already having declined one appeal is granting one, and the discussion that happened after my last decline made me uninterested in granting any appeal on this page here until at least 2022. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, how is that ground to deny the request? He said he wasn't going to review the appeal, yet you said the same thing and denied it? Explain please? Sausagea1000 (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop creating new sections now.

{Unblock|Can an admin please contact Daniel Case and ask him how ToBeFree's message below my last appeal, where he stated that he would not review the appeal is grounds to deny the appeal?}

STOP IT. The unblock template is to be used to request an unblock, not for general questions. If you keep abusing your talk page, you will once again lose access. --Yamla (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, I will stop. But just so you know, the reason I posted my question as an unblock appeal was because I had asked this question previously and got no replies and creating an unblock appeal puts my talk page in a category that admins often check. I will probably make another appeal soon. Sausagea1000 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sausagea1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You don't seem to understand the purpose of my unblock requests. I am appealing to CONTRIBUTE, not DISRUPT. My edits years ago that resulted in my block were childish and nitpicky, often about small grammar decisions in articles which I disagreed with and repeatedly reverted. I also spammed talk pages with irrelevant and unnecessary comments. Since my block, I have changed, and if I am unblocked, my actions will not be repeated.

Accept reason:

Unblocked given passage of time, with warning given here --Euryalus (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things before resolving this latest request:

Sausagea1000: appreciate you say you'll won't resume disrupting talkpages and edit-warring. Thanks for that. As ToBeFree notes above, you also need to give some indication of what you will do. For example can you name some articles you'd like to edit,? Perhaps outline what edits you actually want to make to them? That would make it easier to determine whetehr this latest request has credibility that the previous ones lacked. If you can't think of any that's fine, but unfortunately it will point away from you needing edit access.
Yamla: I know you're not actually the blocking admin but this saga has gone on so long that NeilN seems to have retired. So you're the next best thing. Views welcome on this latest request. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits will mainly involve fixing typos (e.g an to and, every to ever and out to our), updating outdated information (e.g stuff that says it's still 2018) and some other stuff. Can't think of any articles to edit at the moment however... Sausagea1000 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced WP:CIR has been overcome, but I don't object to lifting the block and assuming good faith. I'll warn Sausage that any further disruption may result in an immediate indefinite reblock, so they'd want to be really careful. --Yamla (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One example of an edit that will NOT be repeated again was my edit to CNN where I inserted blatantly false information. Looking back, that edit was dumb and VERY disruptive, possibly vandalistic. Sausagea1000 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: thanks and yes agree with the concern. Sausagee1000 am unblocking given the passage of time and your commitment to make useful contributions from here on, but be aware that any return to disruptive editing will swiftly lead to a reblock. Otherwise, welcome back to editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for unblocking me. Once again, I agree that I will make useful, constructive edits and resolve disputes using talk pages rather than edit wars. Sausagea1000 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Christ's Hospital

The article Christ's Hospital you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Christ's Hospital/GA1 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Mertbiol (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits since the unblock

Since you were unblocked, you have made 6 edits, one of which was correct. The five others all had more or less minor issues:

This was not correct, the actual Welsh name can be found at the Welsh article: Clarbeston is not even the Welsh name of the town.
Here you tried to help, but you actually just enshrined a previous vandal edit by grammar-correcting it instead of reverting it.
This was just a waste of time of the GA reviewers, that article was nowhere near GA status.
This is very unlikely to get any support
This is trying to create an issue where none exists. Please start doing what you said what you'ld do when unblocked, which is actually improving articles, and stop with the disruption. Otherwise it seems likely that you will just be reblocked as a net negative, with very little chance of getting another unblock later. Fram (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarbeston Road edit was Google Translate, I don't actually know Welsh. As for the Leez Priory edit, I didn't know it was a vandal edit, I just thought that somebody removed the year because it was incorrect, and didn't remove the in. While I did make this account years ago, since I spent most of those years blocked, I really have no idea what GA quality is, and the reason I nominated Christ's Hospital for GA was because I wanted to nominate it for DYK (something like ...that Christ's Hospital is not actually a hospital) and found that it wasn't a GA, and only skimmed through the article before nominating it. Even though the article was quite long, it wasn't GA quality, despite the fact that it was long enough for DYK (not trying to start an argument because I don't want another block). The cardinal direction merger proposal was because we shouldn't have an article about everything. My most recent edit, which was to the main page talk page, was about showing nudity on the main page, which I don't think should happen because this website is often used by children. Please don't take this as me trying to start an argument, I am just explaining the edits I have made. I am willing to be proven wrong. Sausagea1000 (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the latest drama about the 'nip' on the main page is proof enough this one is not here for useful additions to the project. You gave him rope, he used it to tie up a bank teller - reinstate the block for another six months and see if he will finish "growing up." 50.111.19.34 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're an IP address editor. Wether I get blocked or not is an admin's decision. Secondly, have you not seen my edits since then? Not a single one has been reverted. Additionally, how is taking part in discussions on talk pages disruptive? It is not editing the encyclopedia itself and all 'disruptive' changes should be ironed out at that stage. At least I'm not edit warring anymore.

December 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months 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 ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR. This edit was the final straw for me. Maybe try in another six months once you've matured a bit more. I strongly suggest you not request an unblock, as it's quite likely every other admin watching would have just indeffed you again and are rolling their eyes at me. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Tube Challenge

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tube Challenge, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Tube Challenge

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tube Challenge, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marston Vale Line

There have been so many changes of plan on this line that I wouldn't bother changing anything until it actually happens. But it probably will. See Testing begins to restart trains along the Marston Vale line and SERVICES TO RETURN TO MARSTON VALE LINE NEXT MONTH WITH INITIAL TIMETABLE RELEASED (24 October 2023, press release, probably) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things that get edited as they happen, e.g articles about ongoing wars, but there aren't that many people editing articles related to this subject so I think this is the best option. Even though the information isn't entirely accurate, WP:NOTGUIDE DEFINITELY applies here. Sausagea1000 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there aren't that many people editing articles related to this subject I guess you aren't too familiar with UK rail enthusiasts then!

[Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you revert your edit to Fenny Stratford, but only that it might not be worth the effort to replicate it at all stations to Bedford just yet. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean relatively speaking. Articles about stuff like global news can attract hundreds or even thousands of edits in a single day, whereas there are some articles about the UK's 2000+ train stations that haven't been touched in years. This is a big community, but I'm just saying that there are many bigger ones out there. Sausagea1000 (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date of 1972 stock

Thank you for your recent edits to the Bakerloo line article. You are right that the 1972 stock entered service on 26 June. The problem was that you got the parameters to the "age" template the wrong way round. It should have read "age|1972|6|26", not "age|1972|26|6". I have now corrected this. (And it is now correclty showing the age as 51 years; it will automatically change to 52 in June.) Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we have to Americanize all the time, even in articles about UK-related stuff. Quite a shame that we have to constantly do things differently to satisfy how it's done across the pond. Anyway, thanks for letting me know where I messed up. Sausagea1000 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]