User talk:Tbrennan0827: Difference between revisions
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Tags:Mobile editMobile web edit | →Unblock discussion: Accepting unblock with conditional restrictions | ||
| Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I’d like a review of my ban that considers the reasons I explained in my previous appeal. I don’t see where my appeal was lacking. If it was lacking, I’d like an explanation of where so that I can best address the concerns. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)|decline=As the blocking admin feels your appeal does not meet [[WP:GAB|the basic appeal guidelines]], believing it to be disingenuous, I'm declining the appeal. [[User:Ponyo|<span>'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span>''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed|1=I’d like a review of my ban that considers the reasons I explained in my previous appeal. I don’t see where my appeal was lacking. If it was lacking, I’d like an explanation of where so that I can best address the concerns. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)|decline=As the blocking admin feels your appeal does not meet [[WP:GAB|the basic appeal guidelines]], believing it to be disingenuous, I'm declining the appeal. [[User:Ponyo|<span>'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span>''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)}} | ||
{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to once again appeal my block request. I want to start this request by stating that, genuinely, I am not doing this out of spite or frivolously to be annoying but rather because I believe that I have good cause to be unblocked. I would like to bring two things to the attention of the reviewer; I'll keep it brief. Firstly, I have complied with all the standards indicated by WP:GAB. The standard requires that I do four things: (1) understand why I was blocked, (2) give a good reason for my unblocking, (3) talk about myself, and (4) agree to behave. I have done all four of these. I understand why I was blocked (not complying with or understanding WP:MOS and making a page that was labeled as promotional). I have given a good reason for my unblocking (I have stated that I have an interest in contributing to other pages in a positive manner, including Sámi language pages). I have kept my appeals about myself (except for one which I wish I hadn't phrased the way I did.). I have agreed not to make more pages and to abide by and respect WP:MOS regardless of whether I have personal problems with it. I don't think any of this is new information, and I believe my previous appeals make this all clear. In my latest appeal, I requested that I be given a reason for continued denial regardless of this information. Secondly, as stated in WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions" and "Administrators should justify their actions when requested". I realize that we are all busy people and that everybody here is a volunteer, but I think that this rule was clearly broken. Not only was it over 70 days since I requested an explanation, but the one I was eventually given contained no detail at all. Why does the admin think it is disingenuous? I have no idea because I wasn't given a reason. I am not spiteful, but I would like an honest evaluation and explanation. Once again, if my appeal is denied, I would like to be given an explanation so that I may address the concerns. [[User:Tbrennan0827|Tbrennan0827]] ([[User talk:Tbrennan0827#top|talk]]) 12:17 pm, 10 September 2024, Tuesday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC−4) |accept = Accepting with the conditional restrictions below, carrying a ban against editing topics with a potential for a paid conflict of interest such as biographies of living people, currently-active companies and organizations, and recently published media. This will be logged at [[WP:ER/UC]], and may be appealed at [[WP:AN]] once you have accumulated several hundred constructive edits. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 14:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
{{unblock|1= I would like to once again appeal my block request. I want to start this request by stating that, genuinely, I am not doing this out of spite or frivolously to be annoying but rather because I believe that I have good cause to be unblocked. | |||
I would like to bring two things to the attention of the reviewer; I'll keep it brief. | |||
Firstly, I have complied with all the standards indicated by WP:GAB. The standard requires that I do four things: (1) understand why I was blocked, (2) give a good reason for my unblocking, (3) talk about myself, and (4) agree to behave. | |||
I have done all four of these. I understand why I was blocked (not complying with or understanding WP:MOS and making a page that was labeled as promotional). I have given a good reason for my unblocking (I have stated that I have an interest in contributing to other pages in a positive manner, including Sámi language pages). I have kept my appeals about myself (except for one which I wish I hadn't phrased the way I did.). I have agreed not to make more pages and to abide by and respect WP:MOS regardless of whether I have personal problems with it. | |||
I don't think any of this is new information, and I believe my previous appeals make this all clear. In my latest appeal, I requested that I be given a reason for continued denial regardless of this information. | |||
Secondly, as stated in WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions" and "Administrators should justify their actions when requested". | |||
I realize that we are all busy people and that everybody here is a volunteer, but I think that this rule was clearly broken. Not only was it over 70 days since I requested an explanation, but the one I was eventually given contained no detail at all. Why does the admin think it is disingenuous? I have no idea because I wasn't given a reason. I am not spiteful, but I would like an honest evaluation and explanation. | |||
Once again, if my appeal is denied, I would like to be given an explanation so that I may address the concerns. | |||
[[User:Tbrennan0827|Tbrennan0827]] ([[User talk:Tbrennan0827#top|talk]]) 16:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
*The explanation given by the prior admin was that they believe your request to be disingenuous. Having reviewed your contribution history, I can see why: the three articles you have attempted to contribute are all plausibly promotional (''Defying Hitler'' less so), as are your edits at [[Charlie Berens]], and you resubmitted [[Draft:Defying Hitler: A Memoir]] with zero improvements despite it lacking any independent sources. Outside this and the misguided attempt to fix the placement of periods, you've made essentially 2 edits that are clearly improvements, at [[Zone of Death (Yellowstone)]]. Your suggestion of working on Sami language articles can also seem somewhat flippant, given that nothing in your editing history suggests any prior interest in this topic. Thus, the only path toward an unblock that seems feasible to me is if you accept a [[WP:Conditional unblock]], where you will be allowed to edit on the condition that you avoid topics with a potential for a paid conflict of interest, i.e. biographies of living people, currently-active companies and organizations, or recently published media. This would leave you free to edit about Sami languages among a plethora of other topics. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 18:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | *The explanation given by the prior admin was that they believe your request to be disingenuous. Having reviewed your contribution history, I can see why: the three articles you have attempted to contribute are all plausibly promotional (''Defying Hitler'' less so), as are your edits at [[Charlie Berens]], and you resubmitted [[Draft:Defying Hitler: A Memoir]] with zero improvements despite it lacking any independent sources. Outside this and the misguided attempt to fix the placement of periods, you've made essentially 2 edits that are clearly improvements, at [[Zone of Death (Yellowstone)]]. Your suggestion of working on Sami language articles can also seem somewhat flippant, given that nothing in your editing history suggests any prior interest in this topic. Thus, the only path toward an unblock that seems feasible to me is if you accept a [[WP:Conditional unblock]], where you will be allowed to edit on the condition that you avoid topics with a potential for a paid conflict of interest, i.e. biographies of living people, currently-active companies and organizations, or recently published media. This would leave you free to edit about Sami languages among a plethora of other topics. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 18:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| This isTbrennan0827'stalk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Hello, Tbrennan0827, andWelcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you foryour contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check outGetting Help below, ask at thehelp desk, or place{{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember tosign your name on talk pages by clicking
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in theedit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing!KylieTastic (talk)11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 | Hello,Tbrennan0827!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 theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!KylieTastic (talk)11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] |
It’s literally just material from the actual book what's a better or more in depth source than that?Tbrennan0827 (talk)21:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 | The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| @ aboveXyzzzy123 (talk)20:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] |
Hello, Tbrennan0827. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Defying Hitler: A Memoir, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)16:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tbrennan0827. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Defying Hitler: A Memoir".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.LizRead!Talk!20:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to readthe guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using theArticle Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed onGruber Law Offices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does notcredibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more aboutwhat is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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 withWikipedia'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 thedeleting administrator.AusLondonder (talk)22:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to readthe guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using theArticle Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed onDavid Gruber (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does notcredibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more aboutwhat is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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 withWikipedia'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 thedeleting administrator.AusLondonder (talk)22:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk)00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I’m not gruber? What was I even banned for?
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read theguide to appealing blocks for more information.Yamla (talk)10:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
TBh I´m not completely sure why i was blocked based on what was explained to me. I suppose it was because I did not "explain why (gruber) was significant" enough and it seemed like advertising rather than a Wikipedia entry? I disagree but that´s what i have best gathered. To remedy that, I suppose i would write more about how huge his presence in SE Wisconsin is and why that warrants a page on wikipedia.Tbrennan0827 (talk)16:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
We havea page that deals exactly with why what you have been trying to do re Gruber is problematic. Sorry no one linked you to it before. —Daniel Case (talk)07:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
It’s ok, I appreciate your response. But I still don’t see how what I did was advertising. The link that you sent me lists out what is promotion in a few bullet points. I agree with the concepts, but none of them apply here:
"ensuring awareness" for *your* service, cause, website, or whatever"making sure people know about" *your product, service, website, or whatever*"keeping the story straight" in an article about *you* or *someone/something you have close ties with*"*just posting facts*" that everyone else thinks sounds like an advertisement
I have done exactly none of these. I have no relation with gruber at all, as I have previously mentioned, so it’s quite not possible to do those. I don't really care if he fails. I do not wish to promote him one bit. I made the page because, frankly, I was surprised he didn't have one seeing how big he is here. I wanted to read about his background on Wikipedia, but he didn't have one.
The fact that I was banned from ALL EDITING because I made two pages concerning a WIDELY-KNOWN BUSINESS PERSON in Wisconsin when others make disruptive edits and get multiple warnings is truly bizarre.
Really, I just want my editing privileges back. I want to fix the endless periods people put outside quotations here. I am not a disruption. I've never vandalized. I don't make bad content.
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look, I truly do not get why what I did warranted a block and think it’s fairly insane that I was given one. Please read above to see my reason. That said, I really do want my editing privileges back. As I said, I don’t made disruptive edits, I don’t spam, and I’m not trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever. I just want my editing back so I can fix terrible grammar things and contribute to the project. Growing forward, I guess I won't make an article about gruber. If that's what it takes then fine. Just unblock me please.Tbrennan0827 (talk)08:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Tbrennan0827:
I regret to inform you that your unblock request has been declined.
In the above discussion, you seemed to indicate (and I apologize if I've misconstrued your intent here) that you would immediately set-out to begin violating Wikipedia guidelines if unblocked, specificallyMOS:LQ (See:"I want to fix the endless periods people put outside quotations here.").
Blocking is done to arrest the possibility of future disruption so we can't respond to unblock requests when it is clear disruption is almost certainly going to result from the unblock. While LQ is only a guideline, it is one widely followed and an editor who intends to go on a grand tour of WP making the changes you've indicated would be likely to create great annoyance (even if unintentional).
That said, I feel confident that a concise unblock request made after a period of time reasonable enough in duration to indicate you have familiarized yourself with WP's policies and guidelines would probably be positively received. Also, committing to completingWP:ADVENTURE, upon unblocking, might be talismanic of your productive intent.
While you currently can't edit WP, you can continue to participate in the WP project as a non-editing reader.
I know this isn't the response you may have wished to receive, but it's my hope you understand that all blocks are potentially transient, and are rarely a permanent restriction of one's editing privileges.
I hope to see you resume editing in the near future and look forward to reading your contributions.
Best regards,
Chetsford (talk)20:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
What constructive edits would you make?-- Deepfriedokra (talk)10:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As requested, I have taken a reasonable amount of time and have familiarized myself with the Wikipedia guidelines. I didn´t know that Logical Punctuation was even a thing before, nor did I know that Wikipedia has its own style guide type of thing. I now do. While I disagree with some of its choices, I will not take any actions to disrupt those who do not.Tbrennan0827 (talk)01:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Hmm the block was for promotional editing. Somehow you're shifting this into punctuation; I had to go through the deleted portions of this talk page to figure out why. What I learned was that you somehow didn't understand how the Gruber articles you created were promotional, which is puzzling to me; next thing, you're saying "Ima fix this punctuation" without realizing that that's the way we do it. To me, this all adds up to a lack of competence: you are doing disruptive things in a place while completely oblivious of the rules that govern behavior in this place, and you have given me no reason to think this will improve.Drmies (talk)01:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Did you not read what I wrote at all? Per the previous person to look at my block request, a look over the Wikipedia guidelines for editing and a reasonable time period to familiarize myself with them would rule in my favor. I have already addressed that while I do not agree with labeling Gruber as promotional, I accept it. I do not plan on remaking such a page or any page.
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to request a new review as I believe that the previous reviewer did their review in bad faith. Please see my comment to the review as well as my original language in the request. Also, please see the review and comment made by the ban reviewer before the most frequent oneTbrennan0827 (talk)03:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I see no evidence of bad faith on the part ofDrmies, and you haven't provided any- it seems to me that you only think so because you did not get the result that you want. Regarding the block itself, you seem to be saying that you don't plan on making any new articles, so we will need to know what you will do instead- but you also need to show that you understand why you were blocked. You seem to be saying that you accept why you were blocked but don't agree with it, and will not disrupt people who do abide by guidelines. You certainly do not have to agree with guidelines, but we need to know that you will abide by the same guidelines as everyone else nevertheless. Like Drmies, I see no reason here to think that your actions will improve, so I must decline your request.331dot (talk)10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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've restored your talk page content; you may not remove declined unblock requests for a sitewide active block until the block is removed. You may remove other content, but not that. SeeWP:BLANKING.331dot (talk)10:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I’ve articulated, I understand why I was banned: creating a page that was “advertising” and disruptive edits which were due to my misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia's style preference around quotation. Regarding the advertising: I disagree with the categorization of the page I tried to create, but I see how it could have been taken as promotional even though I strictly disagree. That's fine, whatever. I said I didn't intend to make any new articles so this issue is resolved. Regarding the style guide, I think it's a poor idea, but I will still follow its principles to the best of my ability. Regarding both reasons: I will not take any actions to interrupt, persuade, or otherwise disrupt others who believe that either idea is true and or good. The point of banns is to prevent future harm to Wikipedia, and since no future harm will occur in either area, this ban is no longer warranted. My future plans for edits, since this was requested too, will mainly revolve around improving the Wikipedia pages for endangered Sámi languages, since they are largely terrible.Tbrennan0827 (talk)13:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read theguide to appealing blocks for more information.Yamla (talk)19:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I’d like a review of my ban that considers the reasons I explained in my previous appeal. I don’t see where my appeal was lacking. If it was lacking, I’d like an explanation of where so that I can best address the concerns. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As the blocking admin feels your appeal does not meetthe basic appeal guidelines, believing it to be disingenuous, I'm declining the appeal.Ponyobons mots17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Tbrennan0827(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to once again appeal my block request. I want to start this request by stating that, genuinely, I am not doing this out of spite or frivolously to be annoying but rather because I believe that I have good cause to be unblocked. I would like to bring two things to the attention of the reviewer; I'll keep it brief. Firstly, I have complied with all the standards indicated by WP:GAB. The standard requires that I do four things: (1) understand why I was blocked, (2) give a good reason for my unblocking, (3) talk about myself, and (4) agree to behave. I have done all four of these. I understand why I was blocked (not complying with or understanding WP:MOS and making a page that was labeled as promotional). I have given a good reason for my unblocking (I have stated that I have an interest in contributing to other pages in a positive manner, including Sámi language pages). I have kept my appeals about myself (except for one which I wish I hadn't phrased the way I did.). I have agreed not to make more pages and to abide by and respect WP:MOS regardless of whether I have personal problems with it. I don't think any of this is new information, and I believe my previous appeals make this all clear. In my latest appeal, I requested that I be given a reason for continued denial regardless of this information. Secondly, as stated in WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions" and "Administrators should justify their actions when requested". I realize that we are all busy people and that everybody here is a volunteer, but I think that this rule was clearly broken. Not only was it over 70 days since I requested an explanation, but the one I was eventually given contained no detail at all. Why does the admin think it is disingenuous? I have no idea because I wasn't given a reason. I am not spiteful, but I would like an honest evaluation and explanation. Once again, if my appeal is denied, I would like to be given an explanation so that I may address the concerns.Tbrennan0827 (talk) 12:17 pm, 10 September 2024, Tuesday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC−4)
Accept reason:
Accepting with the conditional restrictions below, carrying a ban against editing topics with a potential for a paid conflict of interest such as biographies of living people, currently-active companies and organizations, and recently published media. This will be logged atWP:ER/UC, and may be appealed atWP:AN once you have accumulated several hundred constructive edits.signed,Rosguilltalk14:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be no problem with me. As I’ve said, I have no interest in promoting any figure. If the condition is that I stay away from those topics then that’s fine.
For some context:
As for the sami stuff, I’m a linguistics hobbiest. You can see my profile on the Icelandic Wikipedia for some more context.
For the Charlie Berens stuff, he was at my school which is why I updated it. Yes, I should have had other sources.
The Defying Hitler edits were years ago when I was in college. I wouldn't submit such an article again without improvements in citation.
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
-- 18:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)