User talk:Ileagae

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bangkok, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to change weather data on your own, as you have been doing at Essaouira and elsewhere, unless you add or explain the source of the information. You have been editing on Wikipedia for a while now, please respect Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's up to you to show that your edit is verifiable. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am currently editing climate data of cities and towns in Vietnam, can you help me find more extreme temperatures in some of the areas you have because I am currently focusing on that? Ileagae (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I saw this edit. I agree with the edit but not the stated reasons and thought I would comment. Firstly, I disagree about the nuked section being being POV -- I don't read it as endorsing citihood; it seems very NPOV to me -- I don't see an argument either for or against citihood in there. It does seem only tangentially related to the article topic; it concerns a collection of municipalities of unstated size, of which Romblon would be only one member. The nuked section mentioned Cities of the Philippines as the {{main article}}, but that article seems to have nothing in it about this. The problem I have with the nuked section is that it is about a house bill which might or might not eventually become law at some future point, would need follow-up on that to avoid becoming outdated, and that follow-up is unlikely to happen. There is a lot of that sort of stuff in Philippines-related articles, much of it about bills that died on the vine long ago without follow-up to note that in the WP articles mentioning them. I did try to check the status of the bill at congress.gov.ph but had no luck with that; that site used to provide a convenient facility for doing that, but the web page there has been spiffed up and I couldn't quickly find a way to check that on the current prettified version. I'm not trying to start a discussion here -- just thought that I would mention those points. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mysore, 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. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Another sock restoring all their changes: 113.185.47.18. Mellk (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm truly sorry for how I acted during my block. I was upset and impatient, and instead of waiting it out, I created multiple accounts, which only made things worse. I also regret what I said to UtherSRG — it was disrespectful and completely out of line.

To be honest, I used several other accounts after that, and I don’t even remember all of them. Looking back, I know that was wrong. I let frustration get the better of me, and I only made things harder for myself.

Over the past few weeks, I kept thinking about how much I used to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and how I took that for granted. Not being able to edit made me realize how important it is to follow the rules and respect others in the community.

I'm not asking for a free pass. I just hope for one more chance to do things the right way. If unblocked, I will stick to the guidelines, stay calm, and focus on constructive editing. I'm really sorry, and I won’t repeat the same mistakes.

Decline reason:

My recommendation is that you take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time with no more abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2025 (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.

As the blocking admin, I'll add that the remark was only the last straw, not the full reason for the block. You will need to address your behavior leading up to the block. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: - the blocking admin is Jpgordon. He replaced your temporary block with an indefinite checkuser block. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Indeed. I should have said "original blocking admin". - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)