User talk:Blow.ofmind78

May 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Lynch44. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 1985–86 FC Barcelona season have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Lynch44 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notification. I'm having editing problems with the user and they weren't done on purpose. I am working to solve the problem. Thank you again. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now you seem like you're on the way to a WP:NOTHERE block. Do you intend to actually improve any of our articles? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to create a new article related to FC Barcelona but I can't. You mentioned that I could use the sandbox but I can't find it either. Could you help me? Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mention that; that was Lynch44, after they reverted your BS edits to one article. I don't see you trying to do anything except for screwing around on your user page. Your sandbox? Click on the red link that Lynch left there for you. Or you could have asked at the Teahouse, or at the Help desk. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. How do I create a new article? Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now that is the last thing you should do. Click on that sandbox link first, and write some content. With some secondary sources, preferably. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Teahouse. Thanks, I'll try the Sandbox now. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does secondary sources mean? Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think Wikipedia is? Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a new page about the FC Barcelona Foundation. I have enough ideas and sources to start editing but I don't know how to do it. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are secondary sources? Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm done here. You can look up what secondary sources are in any online encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. And if you don't know what they are, you should not get into article space. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to read how Wikipedia works first and learn from other users. Thanks. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh). WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft for review. WP:42 explains the need for quality references. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and help. Great contribution for me. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona Femení[edit]

On this edit of yours to FC Barcelona Femení: If you want to claim that the sources cited for what you removed are mistaken or misrepresented, then make this claim on Talk:FC Barcelona Femení and get agreement before making such a deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do not quite understand the reasons for your reversal. The content I deleted from this page is not supported by the reference provided (besides not being very reliable). It doesn't say anywhere that women's football was popular in the 60's. I made other contributions on the page that you also removed. May I know more reasons? Thanks Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a new thread at the foot of Talk:FC Barcelona Femení, announce that the content you propose to delete is not supported by the references provided, and say that if if nobody objects you will delete it after one week. If anyone objects, discuss. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Kingsif (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, i.e., getting into a delete, reverted, delete again, reverted again, can lead to your account being short-term blocked, or indef blocked from editing a specific article. Either get concensus at the article's Talk page or drop the effort and find other articles to edit. David notMD (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not vandalized wikipedia. Thank you for your absurd comment. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To think that I am committing acts of vandalism to reverse 1 time is also being arrogant and manipulative. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism is removing sourced content without an explanation, then doing it again - after being reverted and asked to discuss - by calling it and a very strong source 'fake'. Not only do you need to learn how sourcing works, as you were instructed only hours before this incident, but you need to get experience in all of editing before moving into article space. Your other edits show that you want to rewrite many articles related to FC Barcelona, to your own personal standards and views. At the moment, none of your edits are acceptable, let alone improving Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting all the edits I make. The edits made in Follow my dreams are based on what the sources say. At no time have I made the work to be another. I have stated that there was a modification with respect to the original and on the Talk page I have proposed making two different pages. You have an arrogant attitude towards me. I know you are annoyed by new users. First of all check the edit I made. At no time have I removed any references. I have clarified the situation. The painting done by TV Boy is totally different from the original. Da Vinci also painted on top of other paintings and they were not considered modifications, but I reiterate, at no time have I edited that they are different works. I think you are abusing my edits. Help me and try to understand the reasons. Stop threatening me with sanctions. By the way, I only reversed the contents once on the FC Barcelona Femení page when no one had responded to the Talk page. At the time there was an active discussion I did not revert anymore. Don't manipulate. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I - and the warning - were referring to your edits at FC Barcelona Femení, but thanks for acknowledging that your edits elsewhere are clearly disruptive too, since they're what you assumed what was being contested. Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

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) 03:00, 16 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).

Blow.ofmind78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I don't know if I have done the procedure correctly to reverse my indefinite user block. I just wanted to contribute as a user to the improvement of this shared project. I still don't know the exact reasons for the block. If I did something wrong I would like to be able to resolve it and don't do it again. I've only been a user for 3 days and I edit with my mobile phone. Possibly I have made repeated changes to a new topic I created in Talk:Follow my dreams but this is due to the difficulty of editing with the portable device and it is not easy to see the final result correctly. I think that for an indefinite blocking you have to act in a very serious negative way. At no time have I vandalized any article. Please tell me how to find a solution. Thanks. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You appear to have been gaming the system by rapidly making small edits to rack up an edit count to obtain advanced permissions. The system exists for a reason. On top of that, your editing is otherwise disruptive as described on this page. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 16 May 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.

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).

Blow.ofmind78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone explain me why I have been blocked indefinitely? I have simply made a notification on the Admins page to resolve a problem. Is that so bad? Can someone help me? At no time have I made any malicious edits or vandalized Wikipedia. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request, only a single open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 16 May 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.

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).

Blow.ofmind78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I understand the motives what I was blocked for and I will not do it again. I made edits compulsively to increase the number of edits quickly and gain privileges quickly. I also disruptively edited content thinking that only I was right. I have read pages such as Wikipedia:Disruptive edits and I understand the reasons behind the blocking. This situation will not occur again as I will seek consensus and will not make any more compulsive edits. I will make only productive contributions and I will not gaming the system again. I understand and am committed to the rules of Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. You've already been warned about making multiple simultaneous open unblock requests. Continuing to do so shows you cannot follow simple instructions. Yamla (talk) 09:53, 16 May 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.

I don’t do it again[edit]

331dot, Thank you for your response. Please, is this reason so serious that you have argued to block me indefinitely? There is a possibility to resolve this incident?. I had no record that I was not allowed to do these actions, but okay, I guess there is a regulation. Please give me an answer how I could reduce this block or apologize. I don't do it again. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an unblock request so I removed the request formatting. You will need to remain blocked until you address the reasons for the block by telling us what steps you will take to not repeat those actions. Putting an end date on the block does nothing in that regard; to unblock you we need to be convinced the disruption will not resume. Please see the unblock appeals guide to learn how to craft a request likely to be accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 16 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).

Blow.ofmind78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the motives what I was blocked for and I will not do it again. I will make only productive contributions and I will not gaming the system again. I understand and am committed to the rules of Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Confirmed to various The Penfield Homunculus socks. Yamla (talk) 09:57, 16 May 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.

Please place new posts at the bottom; this may be easier to do if you click "edit" and not "reply". Someone else will review your request, but this isn't going to do it. Many people tell us that they understand and then go right back to doing the same thing wrong. You need to show us that you understand by giving specifics about what was wrong with your editing and what specific things you will change. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. I requested unblocking again. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

IP editing[edit]

This user continued editing under their IP Special:Contributions/81.184.63.174 for a day after their TPA was revoked, and almost certainly as Special:Contributions/185.124.29.104. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: as blocking admin. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]