User talk:Vdfoxcc

Dear @Soetermans ,

I am writing to offer a sincere and meaningful apology for my actions in using sock puppets in bad faith. I understand that my behavior has caused you harm and discomfort, and I deeply regret any negative impact that it may have had on our community.

I take full responsibility for my actions and want to assure you that I never intended to deceive or harm you. I understand that my use of sock puppets in this manner was inappropriate and disrespectful to the community, and I am truly sorry for any hurt that I may have caused.

I am asking for your forgiveness for my actions and hope that you can find it in your heart to unblock me and give me the opportunity to make amends. I value our community and would be grateful for the chance to rebuild the trust that I have broken.

Moving forward, I want to make a sincere effort to be more transparent and honest in all of my interactions, both online and in person. I understand that it may take time for you to trust me again, but I am willing to do whatever it takes to regain your trust.

Once again, I am deeply sorry for my actions and the pain that they have caused. Thank you for taking the time to read my apology, and I hope that we can work towards a positive resolution.

Sincerely, Vdfoxcc (talk)

March 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Islam/GA2. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Hogwarts Legacy, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 00:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the reviewer I can pass it. Can I not? @Soetermans Vdfoxcc (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just woke up when I undid your edit. I said a month, but your account hasn't been active for more than a day. Newly registered editors don't tend to start with GA assessments, you know. And look, you've been blocked because you were trolling and abusing multiple accounts. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unbecoming of you to through a claim of sock-puppetry on me without checkuser. Accusations of sock-puppetry can be serious and damaging, and it is important to approach them with caution and due diligence. Without concrete evidence to support such claims, they should not be made lightly Vdfoxcc (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather curious that a brand-new account just out of nowhere starts reviewing GAs. You were editing disruptively regardless. Also, how do you know what sock-puppetry is and checkusers are? You use a lot of fancy words without actually addressing the issue: you were trolling. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of sock-puppetry and other such words are used to highlight how thoroughly I have reviewed the rules of wikipedia. I strongly advise you to attempt to change your mind of stone in to one which can accept and see my point of view. Vdfoxcc (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Considering I am new and I was only trying to help by passing the GA article. I feel a ban of a few days seems better. And to the idea that I am "trolling", consider this. If every man and woman who was new to a space and made a mistake was immediately banned without any chance to learn from their mistake, then there would be no growth or progress in that space. It's important to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have good intentions, especially if they are new to the community.

That being said, it's important to also hold people accountable for their actions and ensure that they are not causing harm or disrupting the community. A ban of a few days can be a reasonable consequence for a minor infraction, as long as it's accompanied by clear communication about why the ban was imposed and what steps the person can take to avoid similar issues in the future.

As for the accusation of "trolling", it's important to carefully consider whether one's actions could be interpreted as intentionally provocative or disruptive. If there is any doubt, it's always better to err on the side of caution and approach the situation with a mindset of constructive dialogue and respectful communication. Vdfoxcc (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yep, trolling. Also abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:18, 29 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing this unblock request to request a lifting of the block placed on my account. I understand that my actions may have caused inconvenience to the community and I sincerely apologize for any disruption that may have been caused. I would like to explain my situation in the hopes of resolving this matter. I was blocked for not thoroughly reviewing a GA article before passing, which I understand was a mistake. I understand that it is important to thoroughly review articles before making edits to ensure accuracy and to avoid making changes that could be considered disruptive. In retrospect, I should have taken the time to review the article more carefully before making my edits. I am committed to following the community's policies and guidelines in the future and will take the necessary steps to ensure that my contributions are in line with these standards. I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to contributing positively to the community in the future. To the accusation that I am a sock-puppet: I understand that sock-puppetry is a serious issue and can have significant implications for the community. Therefore, I would like to clarify that I am a legitimate user of this platform and that there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that I am a sock-puppet account. Therefore you should wait until concrete evidence to ban me. Innocent until proven guilty. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Vdfoxcc (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

As someone who has been caught using sock puppets, I would like to provide a personal defense for my actions. While I understand that some may view the use of sock puppets as deceptive or manipulative, I did not use them with any malicious intent or to harm anyone. I created my sock puppets to explore different interests and engage with online communities in a more personal way. I did not want to use my real identity for fear of judgment or backlash, so I created separate personas that I could use to interact with others more freely. My sock puppets allowed me to explore different topics and engage in conversations that I may not have felt comfortable doing otherwise. I do want to acknowledge that there may have been times where I engaged in some bad faith editing using my sock puppets. While I never intended to cause harm or deceive anyone, I understand that my actions may have been seen as inappropriate. I take full responsibility for any negative impact my actions may have had and apologize for any harm I may have caused. Going forward, I will strive to be more mindful and transparent in all my online interactions and ensure that my actions align with my values of honesty and respect for others. I understand that my actions may have caused some concern or discomfort, and I apologize for any negative impact they may have had. Moving forward, I will be more transparent about my use of sock puppets and will only use them for legitimate and harmless purposes. Vdfoxcc (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see anything in this appeal that convinces me that it would benefit the community to unblock you at this time, especially given that just two hours before this appeal you were still claiming you are not socking. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 29 March 2023 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Hogwarts Legacy/GA1[edit]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Hogwarts Legacy/GA1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

See WT:GAN#Concerns with a review

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations \| March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]