User talk:204.129.232.191

IPThis user is a member of the Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle.

This user supports the right of anonymous users to edit Wikipedia.

October 2021

Hello, I'm Ifnord. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Birds (play) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Ifnord (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2022

Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Max Park have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of shopping malls in California have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. 💜  melecie  talk - 14:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at South Coast Plaza, you may be blocked from editing. Cannolis (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of shopping malls in California. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:What if 2020 was a person

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Draft:What if 2020 was a person, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. MarcGarver (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

There are websites where you can use your imagination and write about whatever you want, but Wikipedia is not such a website. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, but this draft I created is very funny and was only made for people who like to use imagination and it gives a greater understanding of this draft. It has many references and links to this draft. There is nothing wrong with this draft. Also 2020 can drink coffee and read books if it was a person and character. This is very humorous. And I wanted to be comedian and writer. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I wish you luck with your future career, but again, Wikipedia is not the place for this. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 331dot. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Westfield Century City have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:204.129.232.191, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:United States. Cannolis (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What is this reason? My edit request isn't disruptive and trolling. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It was, and if you don't see why, you lack the skills and maturity needed to participate here. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Didn't know I was making disruptive edits, but you blocked me for 1 month. However, I was discussing how to improve articles on talk pages, not trolling. I knew that I had made way too many errors and mistakes, such as accidentally blanking pages and adding not a very good grammar. It was not vandalism. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Got blocked

 Unfortunately, I got blocked with a range. I got a range block instead of a normal block. Well, I might need to wait for several months and I might edit again. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, California, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Oh, alright! I just copied it from another article. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You still need to include citations, even if they are the same as the one from the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your edit to History of libraries has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Like @Magnolia677 said recently just above, if you keep adding WP:COPYPASTEd stuff like [1], you'll get blocked. You've now been warned about this twice this week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I knew, I've been warned twice a week ago. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern California. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Continuing the disruption of User:Uni3993. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Compact disc. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Then stop your disruptive editing and go to the Wikipedia of your native language. You have made it clear that you do not have a good enough grasp on English to edit on the English Wikipedia as evidenced by the below thread. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf But, do I need to quit editing Wikipedia for all, ask questions at teahouse, use sandbox to make test changes, or continue to edit articles until blocked? You decide for me. If you block me, I will need to wait until my block has expired. Then, I might edit again. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle for BFB (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle for BFB and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I did submitted the draft article. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 204.129.232.191! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please stop adding unnecessary grammar and overlink to articles. Adding in "which is" to sentences that do not need it is unproductive. Additionally, please review Wikipedia:Overlink to review why making links to "Town Hall" on small towns in California is also unproductive. PaulRKil (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

On review, this is definitely the same person @Deb and I have confronted in the past. PaulRKil (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@PaulRKil Wait... What? You just found me and caught me doing my edits? How come? I thought you are going to leave me alone and ignore. Are you going to warn me as well? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to ignore you when you use multiple IPs to make the same low quality edits each time you get banned. PaulRKil (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@PaulRKil Also, how did you just catch me doing low quality edits? Plus, my edits are high in quantity in a short time. Why did you found me using multiple IPs? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They're not high quality and your poorly worded response is indicative of that. All the IPs originate from the Fresno area and they are all fixated upon making unnecessary, irrelevant edits to shopping malls with the same poor quality. In the past I've tried to be helpful and understanding, but clearly you are not interested in being a productive editor on this site. PaulRKil (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@PaulRKil But you know that, a lot of different people use different IPs and I'm clearly one of them. But how am I not interested in being a productive editor on this site? My edits are just normal and fine, but I saw that you reverted my edits on each article. Plus, aside from shopping malls and town articles, I edit other articles like media, timeline pages, restaurants, forgotten articles, and book articles. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You've been banned on those IPs for poor quality editing, using a different IP is ban evading. I reverted them because each of them were objectively bad, and I added justification for doing so. Most of them are in broken English. English was not my first language either, but I wasn't editing English wikipedia when I didn't grasp the language. As I've mentioned to you multiple times, edit articles in your native language. There is more of a need for non English editors than English ones. PaulRKil (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@PaulRKil If there is more of a need for non English editors than English ones and you think I'm use my native language, can you give me at least examples or listings of alternate of English Wikipedia? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia, German WIkipedia, I could go on and on. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf More examples? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You're joking, right? PaulRKil (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what a language is? If so then there's a Wikipedia for the vast majority of the ones that exist and are spoken. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf @PaulRKil Yes, I know what a language is and there is more in Wikipedia to explore, it is just the fact that I try to be hard on making high-quality edits and try to be more productive as much as I can. Because I can edit any article, I made a high volume of edits. Plus, there are other IPs that add a lot of constructive and reliable content to articles with a bunch of sources cited. Plus, aside from the need of non-English alternatives, what should I do if I get caught being the same person and using multiple IPs to make low-quality edits and changes? Where? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You have literally never made a single good edit on this website, ever. None. They've all been awful. You lack maturity and you're an absolute chore to try and reason with. I'm done with this thread. PaulRKil (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unhelpful replies at the Teahouse

While you're welcome to ask questions, your responses, like this and this among others, tend to range from unhelpful to wrong. Please stop. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Welp, alright for now. I might be considering quitting for a while. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Now got blocked again for 3 years, but even longer

 Since I got blocked for 3 years and all of my edits are reverted again. I have no choice for that, but to quit editing Wikipedia. Right now, I will be taking a wikibreak permanently until I'm unblocked and free to edit again or my block has expired. So, thanks to all of you for helping me to build an encyclopedia and contribute in all articles. And I would be glad if more content is added to all of these articles and improves significantly. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

no one even blocked you? Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

nvm you are Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lolkikmoddi Yes,I got blocked again, but this time, for three years. Plus, I didn't do anything wrong besides making a lot of good edits. This is truly unfair to me. I wish I can edit Wikipedia for free and my block should be expired already. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Pinging the blocking admin so that they can explain why you are not getting unblocked because I agree with the block. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

??? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with the block. PaulRKil (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf @PaulRKil Wow just wow, both of you agreed with this block? And you know all of my edits I did in the past? I guess you just found me making those poor-quality edits by paying attention to the articles I edited. There is no way I would return to editing on purpose and one of you reported me to admins. I guess I will need to waste my time being blocked until 3 years have been expired. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not sounding civil in advance, but all of your edits sucked and it is hard to ignore given the volume and frequency that you added meaningless garbage to articles. I will happily report you every time you show up on this site. Take the three years to learn how to make edits that are actually constructive. PaulRKil (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright then, thank you for this! 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And, also speaking of this, I made an block appeal for the admins. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Again, you didn't still give me an explanation of why I'm blocked, I was waiting for the blocking admin to come, but didn't at all. So I decided to ping him again for the second time, I wanted to really know the reason why I'm blocked. There needs to be a complex explanation for that. I tried appealing the block, but it didn't work the first time for me. So, this is the time to give out a reason. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

My Own Unblock Request in Order for it to be Unblocked:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Here is my review of my block, that will last three year and this is my appeal. So here is the reason of why my block should be appealed. The reason of why should I be unblocked is because I will try to understand the reason why I'm blocked for disruptive editing, will promise and experiment that I will not continue to cause damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but help build an encyclopedia, and I will make useful contributions instead of making those pages protected and finding other articles that need more fixing and improvement. Just like 204.129.232.195 and other IPs, they aren't bad editors and they made a bunch of good and constructive edits. Plus, there is no needed reason why all of my edits should be reverted. So the block is no longer necessary to prevent all of the damage, but to help prevent me from contributing to other projects whatsoever. So, my block should be really unfair and too long. My block my Wikipedia is three years, and it is way too long to wait and this isn't a fair way to do so. So, what I suggest is you all admins unblock me, so I can make a bunch of good edits again and make some more good replies on Teahouse and talk pages. So, would you like to review my sample of my block and know that you are going to give me editing privileges again? I did try to be helpful on Teahouse by reading those replies and responding to them. I am also good at making citations on Wikipedia. I did ask many constructive questions on Teahouse on this site. There isn't a way for you all guys to revert my edits, since I made one constructive, like podcast and California town pages. The reason why this is unfair and rigged is because I was the one making great edits on each page and I know that there are other IPs around the areas that does one too for creativity like 2601:205:C001:EA0:D2E:95F5:7A12:B8D7 and other etc. Not trying to be mean anyways, but I wanted an unblock immediately, since three years is not interesting and I wanted the freedom of changing articles too. I didn't expect for my block to be longer and I never expected one of them to report me to the AIV for no reason at all. I'm making a response of how to make good editing practices for me and other IPs. Also, by the way, I'm also innocent just like every other IP and I never got warned for vandalism at all. Don't not be forgetful that, I was trying to help build an encyclopedia with constructive edits. The main thing is that I'm an experienced user, so it is better for me to give me another chance. If you review, would you please accept that? If you review and you accept that, I would be happy and grateful for anyone since I'm now able to edit along. If you review and are not sure, you should try to unblock me and move on. If you review this block appeal and you decline this block, then, there is one thing to show you: "But since I don't have good English, do I need to quit editing Wikipedia for all, ask questions at teahouse, use a sandbox to make test changes, or continue to edit articles until blocked? You decide for me to choose in my log section. If you choose to block me, I will need to wait until my block has expired. Then, I might edit again and make changes. Thank you for responding to me." So, if you are an admin, would you like to review my block and appeal it immediately and let me edit again. Alright! And do not ever tell other editors to report me to the AIV again. So, thanks for my block appeal for this! I really appreciate it with you guys and others. And have a great day! I will come back in three years, if I still got blocked and I still cannot edit again anymore for that on this day. Farewell, Wikipedians. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below (This probably sets a record for the most lopsided word-count ratio between the request and the response). — Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence "The reason of why should I be unblocked is because I will try to understand the reason why I'm blocked for disruptive editing, will promise and experiment that I will not continue to cause damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but help build an encyclopedia, and I will make useful contributions instead of making those pages protected and finding other articles that need more fixing and improvement." indicates to me that you do not understand why you are blocked. If you do not understand why you are blocked - what assurances would we have that you wouldn't return to the same disruption that led to your block?

"And do not ever tell other editors to report me to the AIV again." You will probably find it to be more beneficial if you were to stick to addressing the behavior that led to your block instead of making demands.

I would strongly suggest reading the guide to appealing blocks, and rewriting this request. SQL^{Query Me!} 19:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@SQL That would be it, but what I trying to say is that I will focus on make useful contributions instead of making those pages protected and finding other articles that need more fixing and improvement as a goal. I will be sure I can build an encyclopedia again. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, both of two IPs got blocked very fast?

I heard on this Wikipedia site that both 2601:205:c001:ea0:29c4:2554:6bdc:ecfb and 2600:1010:b12f:8241:4023:8412:3e31:eda7 got blocked for claiming to make unwanted edits on this site and block evading? I cannot even believe this. They should never be blocked from editing Wikipedia, instead admins should let both of them edit freely on each article. Also, you know that one of them makes good questions on both Teahouse and Help Desk. There is no way for them to be blocked quicker than the registered users. Plus, editing gives both of IPs information knowledge to learn from one they read. This is one of the reasons why they should be careful on each article or talk page they made. There are admins that monitor thousands of edits. I really wish they will be unblocked soon in the meantime. I can be one like that. This is me, signing off. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Plus, this one that I posted isn't grave-dancing at all. I was only seeing the edits of an editor. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the second try for an unblock appeal for in order to be reviewed: (Note this is an longer essay of reason why I should be unblocked)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello there, if you don't notice me, my name is 204.129.232.191 and I'm an IP editor, I knew that an admin blocked me for a reason. Ok? I normally read Wikipedia pages, but I only return to this site for an unblock appeal. So, if you guys don't know, I was originally editing articles from the beginning of this year, but one of these editors has warned me about the English language and the grammar I used, but when I tried to edit article again, another editor just gave me a final warning about the edit I made and reported me straight to the admin, which was Bbb23. Here is the reason I wanted to appeal the block for the second time, I have rewritten this request: The reason of why should I be unblocked is due to the fact I have completely understand the block I was given, promise and experiment that I will not continue to cause damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but help build an encyclopedia, and I will make useful contributions instead of making those pages protected and finding other articles that need more fixing and improvement. I knew that an admin blocked me for disruptive editing, but I would have to receive the second chance to unblock me, so I have the ability to edit Wikipedia articles again and make a bunch of good edit requests. Also, if anyone is reading this, the truth is that, I don't speak more languages other than just English, yes I knew my English isn't perfect as always, but all editors including me, have a limited sphere of competence. And English is one of my first languages as an editor. Plus, not everyone on this site has to monitor my edit, they can just fix it when I create typos and unsigned comments, not revert them. If you read this, can you please ignore me as soon as possible because there is a fact that I do definitely not need to follow all rules and these guidlines. And if one rollbacker is reading this, then why did you just reverted my edit on this page? [2] I was trying to remove an extra space and that is just unfair. Also, I was trying to add podcast as an invention to the Timeline of historic inventions, but you just reverted my edit, even though I never evade blocks, my block just expired, but an admin decided to block me for several reasons, when in fact I never did those at all. So the block is no longer necessary to prevent all of the damage, but to help prevent me from contributing to other projects whatsoever. But, my block for the time should be really unfair and too long, due to the fact my block in Wikipedia is about three years, meaning that it will expire in 2026, and it is way too long to wait and this isn't a fair way to do so. So, what I suggest is you all admins unblock me, so I can make a bunch of good edits again and make some more good replies on Teahouse and talk pages. If you review and you accept that, I would be happy and grateful for anyone since I'm now able to edit along freely. If you review and are really not sure about that, you should try to unblock me and move on. In truth, it is just the fact that I try to be hard on making high-quality edits and try to be more productive as much as I can. Because I can edit any article, I made a high volume of edits. Plus, there are other IPs that add a lot of constructive and reliable content to articles with a bunch of sources cited. Like other users that are registered, IP editors are also human too, so they should be treated fairly, smart, and better. I also realized that in February, two of IPs got blocked too, but they never did wrong, they tried to build edit articles, so they could build an encyclopedia for the best. People won't realize that our readers are IPs too. And to remember, please don't not be forgetful that, I was trying to help build an encyclopedia with constructive edits. The main thing while editing is that I'm an experienced user, so it is better for me to give me another chance, so I have the ability to make contributions. I saw that one editor just accused me for ruining it with my awful contribution and saying that Wikipedia is already an encyclopedia, but that fact is, I make good contributions with few errors, so it must be an misunderstanding, view more in section: WP:IPDIS. I have been blamed for thing I never did in this site, such as being a vandal and claiming that I should register an account to make edits, when in fact account creation is optional. So, one editor must mistake me as a vandal. The whole biggest reason I came to edit Wikipedia in earlier days and years because it is self-governing mechanism that creates positive externalities, fun, educational, social, dynamic, makes me part of an exciting development making use of the open source idea, edit without permission, helpso thers, not boring, wikis becoming numerous, and a remarkable phenomenon of social organization; learning how things work here provides valuable lessons for many other kinds of organizations. So, the goal of Wikipedia is to create a web-based, free content encyclopedia of all branches of knowledge, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. I knew that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a free content that anyone outside it can edit and distribute. Wikipedia is so great because older articles gets updated thousands of times an hour, typos being corrected within hour, lovely article being available, ability to request articles, attracts highly intelligent, articulate people, and Wikipedia is not paper, meaning it it can be unlimited in size. The edit requests I made on Wikipedia is constructive and several editors also responded to me if it requires fixing and all other kinds of stuff. Every single article on Wikiepedia are consistently evolving with new and recent information being added and this is a great thing because people can find up to date information and not having it to stress over outdadted information in time. Also, that largest encyclopedia has also over 6,500,000 English articles and takes information from other reliable websites and puts it onto one portal. So, these are the reasons why I really need to be unblocked for good. @PaulRKil @Blaze Wolf Even though both of you are not administrators or sysops, would you really like to review my second block appeal for a second time, since both of you are the one to report me to the ANI or an admin? Thank you for reviewing my block. I will come back in three years, if I still got blocked and I still cannot edit again in Wikipedia anymore for that on this day and period. --204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

---