User talk:Editedit446

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).

Editedit446 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. While I genuinely believed my edits were constructive and supported by reliable sources, I now realize that I may have misunderstood how important it is to engage with the community, build consensus, and follow the collaborative spirit that Wikipedia is based on. It honestly makes me sad to be blocked from contributing, because I care about the accuracy and quality of the content. I never intended to be disruptive or to go against community norms. If my edits caused trouble, I truly regret it. I now see that contributing to Wikipedia is not just about adding information, but doing so in a way that respects process, discussion, and the work of others. I am asking for a second chance. I'm willing to take more time to understand the policies better, to use talk pages more often, and to be more careful and collaborative in everything I do here. Please consider unblocking me, or even applying a temporary or partial unblock so I can prove that I can contribute constructively. Thank you for reading this and for the work you do keeping Wikipedia reliable and fair.

Decline reason:

According to gptzero.me, this unblock request was written by an AI. On top of that, I see you blanked (thereby acknowledging you had read and understood) multiple warnings on this page. The combination of the two clearly indicates you should remain blocked. Yamla (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2025 (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.

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Editedit446 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Honestly, I was really sad when I saw I’d been blocked, I truly never tried to go against the community rules or make things harder for anyone. If the things I added caused confusion or problems, I’m truly sorry because it wasn’t my intention.

Whenever I made edits, I just tried to follow what I saw on other Wikipedia pages. Like when in The Lifetimes Tour page I added a section for surprise songs, I did it like how it’s done on The Eras Tour, using a table format. I really thought it fit and would be helpful. But I get now that it wasn’t received that way. If it came across as disruptive, that’s my fault and I take responsibility. I wasn’t trying to overstep I guess I just didn’t realize how it might come across to others. Like this, there are other cases, as the page Radical Optimism Tour where I added references for opening acts (trying to be more reliable) and wrote the announcement on the "background" section where all the announcements are posted. Then my edit was seem as disruptive. It wasn’t my intention.

Since being blocked, I’ve taken time to read the guidelines properly and reflect on how I approach editing. I’m going to be more careful from now on especially on pages where there are already active editors. I really hope I can have a second chance.

Finally, I just hope this doesn’t seem AI generated, like the last admin thought.

Thank you! Editedit446 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Honestly, I was really sad when I saw I’d been blocked, I truly never tried to go against the community rules or make things harder for anyone. If the things I added caused confusion or problems, I’m truly sorry because it wasn’t my intention.

Whenever I made edits, I just tried to follow what I saw on other Wikipedia pages. Like when in [[The Lifetimes Tour]] page I added a section for surprise songs, I did it like how it’s done on [[The Eras Tour]], using a table format. I really thought it fit and would be helpful. But I get now that it wasn’t received that way. If it came across as disruptive, that’s my fault and I take responsibility. I wasn’t trying to overstep I guess I just didn’t realize how it might come across to others. Like this, there are other cases, as the page [[Radical Optimism Tour]] where I added references for opening acts (trying to be more reliable) and wrote the announcement on the "background" section where all the announcements are posted. Then my edit was seem as disruptive. It wasn’t my intention.

Since being blocked, I’ve taken time to read the guidelines properly and reflect on how I approach editing. I’m going to be more careful from now on especially on pages where there are already active editors. I really hope I can have a second chance.

Finally, I just hope this doesn’t seem AI generated, like the last admin thought. 

Thank you! [[User:Editedit446|Editedit446]] ([[User talk:Editedit446#top|talk]]) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Honestly, I was really sad when I saw I’d been blocked, I truly never tried to go against the community rules or make things harder for anyone. If the things I added caused confusion or problems, I’m truly sorry because it wasn’t my intention.

Whenever I made edits, I just tried to follow what I saw on other Wikipedia pages. Like when in [[The Lifetimes Tour]] page I added a section for surprise songs, I did it like how it’s done on [[The Eras Tour]], using a table format. I really thought it fit and would be helpful. But I get now that it wasn’t received that way. If it came across as disruptive, that’s my fault and I take responsibility. I wasn’t trying to overstep I guess I just didn’t realize how it might come across to others. Like this, there are other cases, as the page [[Radical Optimism Tour]] where I added references for opening acts (trying to be more reliable) and wrote the announcement on the "background" section where all the announcements are posted. Then my edit was seem as disruptive. It wasn’t my intention.

Since being blocked, I’ve taken time to read the guidelines properly and reflect on how I approach editing. I’m going to be more careful from now on especially on pages where there are already active editors. I really hope I can have a second chance.

Finally, I just hope this doesn’t seem AI generated, like the last admin thought. 

Thank you! [[User:Editedit446|Editedit446]] ([[User talk:Editedit446#top|talk]]) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Honestly, I was really sad when I saw I’d been blocked, I truly never tried to go against the community rules or make things harder for anyone. If the things I added caused confusion or problems, I’m truly sorry because it wasn’t my intention.

Whenever I made edits, I just tried to follow what I saw on other Wikipedia pages. Like when in [[The Lifetimes Tour]] page I added a section for surprise songs, I did it like how it’s done on [[The Eras Tour]], using a table format. I really thought it fit and would be helpful. But I get now that it wasn’t received that way. If it came across as disruptive, that’s my fault and I take responsibility. I wasn’t trying to overstep I guess I just didn’t realize how it might come across to others. Like this, there are other cases, as the page [[Radical Optimism Tour]] where I added references for opening acts (trying to be more reliable) and wrote the announcement on the "background" section where all the announcements are posted. Then my edit was seem as disruptive. It wasn’t my intention.

Since being blocked, I’ve taken time to read the guidelines properly and reflect on how I approach editing. I’m going to be more careful from now on especially on pages where there are already active editors. I really hope I can have a second chance.

Finally, I just hope this doesn’t seem AI generated, like the last admin thought. 

Thank you! [[User:Editedit446|Editedit446]] ([[User talk:Editedit446#top|talk]]) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Editedit446 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]