User talk:Tacosjajajajja

Thank you for your response. I understand the concern regarding edit warring, and I’m willing to accept a 1RR restriction as a condition of being unblocked. I will focus on consensus-building through talk pages moving forward. Tacosjajajajja (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight Tacosjajajajja (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post another unblock request where you say you are willing to accept a 1RR restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Sand War, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Sand War. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 13:18, 1 June 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

all I did was edit articles and now I’m blocked??

Decline reason:

You disruptively edited Sand War, as well as other articles. Since you don't seem to think you did anything wrong, we will have to leave the block in place. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 1 June 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.

Literally didn’t do anything Tacosjajajajja (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests break section headers; please place all edits in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header/edit summary window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic". 331dot (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 331dot.

I tried to reply but the reply link didn’t work, so I’m adding my message here instead.

331dot,

My edits included clear and reliable references that meet Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. I believe the block may not be fully justified and could reflect a difference in interpretation of policies. It’s important that all contributions adhere to verifiable facts and reliable sources, and I intend to continue contributing accordingly.

I hope we can work together to ensure the article reflects accurate and well-sourced information.Tacosjajajajja (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Tacosjajajajja (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reply" is imperfect and doesn't work well in all situations; it's often better to click "edit" at the top or in the section header to edit this page; not "add topic". 331dot (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello,

I am requesting a review and reconsideration of my block on Wikipedia. I believe the block was imposed unfairly, as my edits included properly sourced, verifiable information adhering to Wikipedia’s content guidelines. I made efforts to provide reliable references and improve article accuracy.

The block appears to be more related to editorial disagreement rather than a violation of Wikipedia policy. I am committed to contributing constructively and collaboratively to Wikipedia and am willing to follow any guidance on improving my editing approach.

Please consider lifting the block so I can continue contributing with accurate, well-sourced content.

Thank you for your time and review. :D Tacosjajajajja (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello,

I am requesting a review and reconsideration of my block on Wikipedia. I believe the block was imposed unfairly, as my edits included properly sourced, verifiable information adhering to Wikipedia’s content guidelines. I made efforts to provide reliable references and improve article accuracy.

The block appears to be more related to editorial disagreement rather than a violation of Wikipedia policy. I am committed to contributing constructively and collaboratively to Wikipedia and am willing to follow any guidance on improving my editing approach.

Please consider lifting the block so I can continue contributing with accurate, well-sourced content.

Thank you for your time and review. :D

Sincerely, Tacosjajajajja

Decline reason:

I suggest you read WP:EW - you were edit warring. Would you consider an WP:1RR restriction? PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 1 June 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.

Unblocking request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I understand that my editing behavior caused concern and I'm willing to accept a 1RR (one revert per article per 24 hours) restriction as a condition for being unblocked. I will focus on improving collaboration, seeking consensus, and discussing changes on talk pages when needed. Thank you for your consideration. Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:39, 5 June 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=I understand that my editing behavior caused concern and I'm willing to accept a 1RR (one revert per article per 24 hours) restriction as a condition for being unblocked. I will focus on improving collaboration, seeking consensus, and discussing changes on talk pages when needed. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Tacosjajajajja|Tacosjajajajja]] ([[User talk:Tacosjajajajja#top|talk]]) 15:39, 5 June 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=I understand that my editing behavior caused concern and I'm willing to accept a 1RR (one revert per article per 24 hours) restriction as a condition for being unblocked. I will focus on improving collaboration, seeking consensus, and discussing changes on talk pages when needed. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Tacosjajajajja|Tacosjajajajja]] ([[User talk:Tacosjajajajja#top|talk]]) 15:39, 5 June 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=I understand that my editing behavior caused concern and I'm willing to accept a 1RR (one revert per article per 24 hours) restriction as a condition for being unblocked. I will focus on improving collaboration, seeking consensus, and discussing changes on talk pages when needed. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Tacosjajajajja|Tacosjajajajja]] ([[User talk:Tacosjajajajja#top|talk]]) 15:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]