User talk:Jlktutu

Hello, Jlktutu!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, BilCat (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Hope to contribute to Wikipedia for many years to come Jlktutu (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop making useless edits to pages. This is a disruptive editing practice and may lead to a block from editing. In particular; if you are attempting to game the system to get extended confirmed rights, please note that gaming the system is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that administrators may block you or remove any rights you may have obtained by gaming the system. JavaHurricane 18:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I can see what your saying. I will refrain from such edits. I will attempt to make constructive edits in the future. As an Editor, that is what I'm supposed to do, and that's what I will attempt to do.

Thank you for all that you do. Jlktutu (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Please let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! JavaHurricane 19:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you do this? TarnishedPath^talk 04:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize. I thought that the message was personal, and was not meant to be on a Talk page. I did see the edit summary that you provided when you reverted my edit. I can see what you're saying. You're right, I didn't provide a policy reason. Going forward, I will refrain from making edits to User talk pages without citing Wikipedia policy. Jlktutu (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPO for when editing other editor's comments in talk is permissible. TarnishedPath^talk 05:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I will. Thank you for letting me know, and thank for taking the time. Jlktutu (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jlktutu. I noticed you immediately (within the same minute) reverted my cleanup and spelling edit using WP:AWB to the "Adam Guettel" article without explanation and restored several errors, including spelling and formatting. Can you explain why you performed this revert? Thanks. Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The edit was a mistake. I revered the edit. About your username, I thought that the name seemed like it was affiliated with Wikipedia. Do apologize if you feel differently. However it would be nice if someone else reviewed the username. Jlktutu (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and for reverting the edit. I appreciate it.

Regarding my username, I understand you felt a review was needed, and I do not object to my username being reviewed. However, WP:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions states that "UAA is for obvious and serious violations only", and for cases that may be borderline violations, it is better to "talk it out with the user on their talk page to encourage them to rename or abandon their account". The only potentially relevant policy, WP:MISLEADNAME, addresses "Usernames that give the incorrect impression that the account is officially affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation; e.g. 1 Foo (WMF), Bar (Wikimedia Foundation)," neither of which I see how would apply to my username.

In the future, I suggest considering discussing your concerns with users on their talkpage first unless their username is truly a blatant username violation per the guidelines. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I can see that. Like you said, I ought to first discuss my concerns with the User. I will do so in the future. Thank you for taking the time. And thanks for all that you do. Jlktutu (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Please explain why you keep reverting my edit on Sandro Marcos. I cited a WP:RS, fully adhering to Wikiepdia policies. If you keep reverting my edit without a fair and logical explanation, I will not stop reverting yours. Thank you. 130.105.53.218 (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Mistake Jlktutu (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.GraziePrego (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the article please. The info about her teaching in China is already stated in it. I didn't realize this when I placed in it there. 2600:1702:2A40:B10:3C3E:EA44:CE45:721A (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jlktutu (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Greetings User Jlktutu. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's clear you have jumped right in. But with less than a month experience consider these two valuable pieces of advice: one, do not be so fast with the trigger. Twice today you reverted substantial edits of mine that were clearly coherent and constructive work (in a long series in each case), which had been accompanied by appropriate (if brief) edit summaries. This is not good. You need to really look at what's going on, and weigh the work - particularly if the editor is doing serial editing at a page. Second, neither time did you provide an explanation for the multiple revert - which is a serious party foul here. If you're going to do new changes patrol (a great much of which I recognize is either vandalism outright or simply new IP editors unfamiliar with how to edit here), and indeed if you are going to use automated tools to do so, you still need to "do the work", the "personal work" of evaluating changes and providing an appropriate reason for reverting them when you do. Which means you had to learn why you were reverting in order to craft that edit summary (not just invoke some canned post).

You will gain alot doing both of these things - and make many more friends than not-so-friends being careless, capricious, even unconstructive in spite of good intentions.

Good luck. 2601:196:180:DC0:C1D5:B51A:3211:C11 (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will take it. Thank you for taking your valuable time tell me that. Much appreciated. Jlktutu (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do. I have since found more unexplained (and completely unwarranted) reverts by you of my edits (made prior to the above posting). I hope you are taking the advise to slow down, do the work properly, and leave edit summaries explaining the rationale for your actions - which is a Wikipedia requisite.

As you are not just "erasing" valuable content when you err, you are potentially chasing away valuable new editors, who end up smote for no good reason and ill-inclined towards attempting further contributions. You were one once. Actually still are. Put the shoe back on your foot. Best. 2601:196:180:DC0:5521:D17B:1183:F9B6 (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACori_Bush&diff=1281912439&oldid=1281912412

Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I initially thought that the quote was unnecessary. However, on second thought, it seems to be something that ought to be considered. Jlktutu (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation.

For the record, if you disagree with a proposal on a talk page, you can say so on the talk page. Please do not delete content from talk pages. On talk pages, it's always good to add things instead of delete things. Thank you.

Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I will attempt to remember that going forward. Thanks. Jlktutu (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Why did you remove the genres on the residence? It is already official that it’s also a comedy crime thriller as well. It has comedy aspects a lot I don’t why you removed it. 122.3.133.206 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You’ve got to stop! You have complaints pasted all over your talk page. And have received several advisories from me already. You are serially reverting edits on a page I am editing faster than I can save them. With no idea that you’re erasing my work after I have completed it. Neither notifying me of the revert, nor leaving appropriate edit summaries, in spite of of you being informed of the necessity for you to do that.

You must stop!

If I see any more of this behavior I will initiate an AFI to have you suspended or banned. Is that clear?

This page is littered with the same type of complaint. You are not heeding others’ concerns, and are abusing your role as a new changes reviewer.

No more platitudes. No more empty promises. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:180:DC0:7987:79C3:7797:8709 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Classic cycle races: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. I also suggest that you should get a tool to revert vandalism like Twinkle or UltraViolet rather than undo. Please check revisions before reverting as you have complaints for not checking properly. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Jlktutu (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jlktutu. I noticed some warnings you left on User talk:43.252.245.34 and wanted to leave some advice. Usually, I'd be a little more pleasant than this, but your talk page indicates that a more direct approach may be needed.

1. Use templates. You seem to have been writing user warnings manually. Please stop doing so, except for experienced users. Your warnings been too aggressive or too unclear. There's an extensive list of talk page templates maintained by WikiProject User warnings. A great deal of work has been put into making sure those templates are clear, civil, and effective. Use them instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

2. Don't escalate. There are two kinds of edits that look like vandalism: edits that aren't vandalism and edits that are. In the first case, AGF means you should not respond harshly without good cause. In the second, the vandal is trying to get a rise out of you. Don't fall for it.

3. Don't issue empty threats. On the aforementioned IP user's talk page, you issued two separate Uw-vandalism4–equivalent warnings after another user had already placed uw-vandalism4 on the page with increasingly angry wording. At that point, you're just taking the rage bait. Just report the user at WP:AIV, revert any recent vandalism, and move on. See also: WP:DENY.

4. Don't edit war. Please read WP:EW and WP:3RR. I haven't rooted through your recent contributions, but I wanted to drop these links based on past talk page messages you've received.

5. Most importantly, read the policies. They're listed at WP:POLICYLIST. You can ignore the non-bolded ones for now, but a lot of the bolded ones are extremely important. Start with content/editing, then move on to conduct/behavioral, then procedural/enforcement/legal. The rest can probably wait. I would recommend doing those things before you make any other edits - otherwise, you may be accused of disruptive editing.

I appreciate that you want to improve Wikipedia, but please try to do so in a way that is civil and constructive. You don't want to get whacked with a wet trout.

Best,
Anerdw (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. I see that a couple of other recent editors have taken the time to leave some constructive advice and helpful links. Excellent. Both are thoughtful, as are their posts.

Just another piece of constructive advice regarding going automated, which, like any such effort in life, is going to have its trade-offs.

Indeed, adopt helpful tools for expediting your work; but be cautious not to allow them to turn you into a robot. Because it can become all too easy to just go click, click, click, and end up in the same place (vis-à-vis reverting valid edits) as operating manually.

Do take the time to weigh an edit appropriately (looking for and assessing additional edits made by that editor to that article, or others, as necessary to verify whether they are a legitimate, constructive user, or a serial vandal), and at least go through the thought process of forming your own edit summary (and why it would state what it would) to ensure you are making the right choice. Not just going “Click, revert“, Click “, canned edit summary“, and racing on to the next new change.

good luck! 2601:196:180:DC0:71A1:1B74:A917:5648 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jlktutu,

If an editor removes a PROD tag, for any reason, you can't put it back. Please do not do this again. If you want this article to be deleted, you'll need to nominate it at WP:AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize. I did not know that. I can see what you're saying. Yes, I won't do that again. I'll keep in mind what you said about WP:AFD. Thank you for taking the time to let me know. And thanks for all that you do. Jlktutu (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, When you're putting an ANI warning on someone's talk page, don't just copy-paste the one I gave to you. It sends me a notification every single time you do it which I don't need to see as I'm not the one giving the warning. Instead, please use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ GraziePrego (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jlktutu, The Bushranger, Caeciliusinhorto, and GraziePrego: Jlktutu, have you seen the movie Nacho Libre? There's a scene where one of the main characters says "they are just niños trying to release their wiggles", meaning "they are just kids playing around". What is what I see here with R2me2's contributions is just someone experimenting with the English language Wikipedia. I think it might possibly be best to review your own contributions before adding any further similar reports. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree- it’s also their own user page! Let them put what they want there without you coming along and deleting it. GraziePrego (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought there was a problem related to Wikipedia guidelines on User pages. I understand what is being said, though. Also I understand what is being said about ANI warnings, will use {{subst:ANI-notice}}. Jlktutu (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jlktutu:, you recently incorrectly reverted my edit at Template:Top Russian female tennis players (doubles). The template hadn't been updated since December 2024, and I updated it to the most recent version of the WTA doubles rankings (March 17, 2025). Joeykai (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize about the incorrect reversion. Thank you for letting me know. Jlktutu (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, regarding your revert at Telfer, Western Australia, when someone takes the time to write a coherent edit summary as they did there, please pay attention to it. Their new information was absolutely correct (and I've edited the article to reflect that). Graham87 (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jlktutu,

Please do not remove talk page or discussion content, like you did at User talk:2600:1012:B124:C696:914F:B1EA:E645:8F7F unless the content is objectionable like a copyright violation or comments that violate BLP guidelines. Just being a jerk doesn't mean that you should remove their edits. While this editor was committing vandalism, most of their talk page comments were not offensive and shouldn't have been removed.

This is not a major issue since the editor was blocked but you are a very new editor and it's better to correct bad habits like this before they become regular habits. All of your editing should abide by Wikipedia policies, please do not take any "short-cuts" or edit as the mood strikes you. If you have any questions about this or editing on Wikipedia, I recommend you bringing them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I see a number of comments here about incorrect reversions. Please think twice before hitting "Undo" and you need to have a very good reason to do this. Also, do not target IP editors, they are just as valid editors as registered accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I’m late to respond, I can see what you’re saying. I am a very new editor, and like you said, better to correct bad habits now, then have such bad habits become regular. Thanks for pointing this out to me. In the future, I will refrain from deleting Talk page or discussion content, unless there is, like you said, a compelling reason, such as a violation of BLP. Also, I believe that I am not targeting IP editors, I am simply attempting to undo vandalism/unconstructive editing. However, I still see what you’re saying, as Wikipedia is meant to be something that anyone can edit, disregarding whether or not the Editor has an Account. I also understand that my edit history shows that the vast majority of my reversions have been of edits by IP editors. Will be more thoughtful going forward. Thanks for taking the time to tell me these things. I appreciate it. I welcome any comments from you or anyone else if they see something that I did that I shouldn’t have done/didn’t do correctly. I want learn, and learn early and quickly so that I can contribute constructively on Wikipedia. Jlktutu (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Good show, User:Jlktutu. It is obvious you are experiencing many growing pains; it is also clear you are open to being corrected, and constructively advised. And do not tend to repeat the same errors, instead finding new ones to make - all part of the learning curve of a good faith editor. Stay with it, stay positive, and stay thoughful, as you are so far proving. 2601:196:180:DC0:31A5:B5B3:B90F:46D2 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jkutu, I noticed you've reverted my recent edits/comments on my talk page and have a history of doing this. Could you please explain your reasoning since none was provided? Wikitekt (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This was a mistake Jlktutu (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Template talk:Infobox baseball biography, you may be blocked from editing. —Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, you may be blocked from editing.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry. I just want to know exactly what I did. Jlktutu (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen you running other editor's changes through an AI checker and I feel I should point out that those things are so completely unreliable that the mere use of them to accuse editors probably constitutes WP:ASPERSIONS? There isn't a reliable way of detecting AI writing unless someone accidentally leaves the prompt in, at this point. Just thought that may be worth mentioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. I just want to say that I have never used AI. Hate to say this, but I actually am not a fan of AI. I like human beings to be supreme. Always felt that way. I like the fact that I, as a human being, can contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and that other human beings are doing the same. Hope the same will be true when it comes to other areas of life. I don't like the "AI takeover." Like I said, I like human beings to be supreme. I'm just curious, what should I do to prevent the prompt from accidentally coming in the future? Jlktutu (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you tell me the reason for reversing my edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorenzo_Insigne&action=history 페르브뤼헌126 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Jlktutu (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jlktutu I only transcribed the title of citations and wikified the article, so how is it related to the above regulation? 페르브뤼헌126 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Jlktutu (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

For example, this citation. I translated the title from Italian to English.페르브뤼헌126 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Jlktutu (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This was the citation: "Foggia, Insigne: "Ora tornerò a Napoli"" [Foggia, Insigne: "Now I will return to Napoli."]. tuttomercatoweb.com (in Italian). 25 May 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2021. I deleted some of the content of this Talk Page. Didn't want the context of this topic to become lost. Jlktutu (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Using tools like WP:TWINKLE or WP:UV will allow you to revert all of the vandalism with 1 click so you don't have to undo each of the IP's revisions individually. Right now you are missing a lot of them. Day Creature (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for undoing vandalism. Hopefully, you can use anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet to reverting obvious vandalism. Nice work! –HirowoWiki (📝) 06:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I believe this is the first Barnstar I am receiving. Thanks for the appreciation. And thanks for all that you do. Jlktutu (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The Stepping out article is virtually completely unsourced. Look at it before reacting 162.213.23.84 (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from Vandalism on Wikipedia. Please attempt to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Jlktutu (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything son. Dont Talk in generalities. Let's be specific. I was removing UNSOURCED material in that STEPPING UT article. It is ALL unsourced which isn't allowed here. 162.213.23.84 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

If possible, please use professional language when posting on Talk pages, whether of an Editor, or of an Article. Jlktutu (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

What are you referring to? I ALWAYS use professional language! YOU are the one who were reverting edits for no reason. That article was UNSOURCED dude. 162.213.23.84 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The proper place for you to complain about my referring to an asshole's vandalism as "asshole vandalism" would be WP:ANI, not anywhere in the land of arbitration. I doubt you'll get very far, but go ahead; perhaps my usage is a violation of some Wikipedia policy I haven't seen. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Posting on Arbitration was a mistake, because the specific page that I posted on was a page on which I lacked permission to post. When I realized this, I did a Manual Revert. There would have been a place to start Arbitration properly. Though come to think of it, maybe that is too rapid an escation. Will consider WP:ANI. I will just say that except for the language, I don't see anything wrong with what you're doing. Only wondering why such language, that one may consider "uncivil", needs to be used. Many names befit those who engage in Vandalism. Yet, it maybe the case that some of those names may not be ueed on Wikipedia. I appreciate everything you and others do as Administrators. As I have said many times before, I am not an Administrator. Just wondering about the language. Thanks again. Jlktutu (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jlktutu, it is better to nominate promotional userpages or drafts under WP:G11, rather than blanking them. You can use Twinkle for this. Thanks, Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 07:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Will do nomination in the future. Jlktutu (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jlktutu, I'm concerned you're still trying to game the system to boost your edit count. Just today, you did 6 edits where you just deleted a chunk of text and then immediately added it again. You did this on User talk:Paul Erik, Trump Gold Card, and Banded bullfrog. Please stop doing this. GraziePrego (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I will stop Jlktutu (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop undoing each individual edit in a lengthy string of vandalism. Do it in one edit, if you know how, or let someone else do it. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a rule against doing it one at a time? Jlktutu (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It's disruptive, like if someone added a sentence one character at a time. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is? Jlktutu (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you really not see how it would be disruptive for someone to make one edit to add each individual character of a sentence? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I see that. Jlktutu (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Making one edit to remove each individual word of vandalism is the same thing. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, why are you making edits like this one, which just add whitespace at the end of a sentence? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.GraziePrego (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 14:36, 29 April 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will not repeat the things that got me blocked in the first place. These are some of the main reasons why I got blocked: Useless edits such as creating an extra white space, then sometimes leaving it there, sometimes reverting it; Removing chunks of text from Articles, User Pages, and Talk Pages, then reverting it; and reverting acts of vandalism one edit at a time. I acknowledge that I did these things. I already have a history of being, essentially, trigger-happy, and not thinking through things. I really do want to be more thoughtful going forward. I hope to do the most amount of consructive contributions with the least amount of edits. I've made many false promises of "won't do that again". I hope this time it will be different. Will use automation with tools like Ultraviolet. I will do away totally with making trivial edits, gaming the system, and being disruptive. Will attempt to contribute constructively to Wikipedia going forward. Jlktutu (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have said you would stop this behavior before, and didn't. To quote a famous doctor, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I see nothing here that convinces me that the behavior will not resume, or that even just explains your past breaking of your word. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 1 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.

It's not up to me to decide what happens with this block, but just to input my two cents- you were given so, so, many warnings and explanations to stop. You got an extremely lenient outcome when you were first taken to ANI over this behaviour even though you were making upwards of 100 useless edits on a single article. You promised to stop then, you promised to stop at every occasion you were warned afterwards, and you just kept doing it over and over and over. I can't at all believe that you wouldn't just do the same thing again as soon as you are unblocked. GraziePrego (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a reply to GraziePrego: As for me undoing my own edits, after I was warned by you, I only did this 4 times: Roland the Farter, User talk:72.252.26.216, Nobita Nobi, and Reece Thompson. As for Roland the Farter, I did the first edit when I noticed that IP made an unconstructive edit. I later fixed all the errors that the IP Editor made, which resulted in my first edit of that Article being Manually Reverted. As for User talk:72.252.26.216, I was attempting to ask why the Editor made the edit to Nicole Arbour. I simply placed a link to the Article without posting a Diff. Then I made the mistake of attempting to use the link to Nicole Arbour to link to the Diff page. After having made this mistake, I realized that Editor Gommeh had reverted the edit by IP 72.252.26.216, and posted on their Talk page letting them know that the edit was undone. As for the edit of Nobita Nobi, I thought that the edit was unsourced. But then, before posting on the Talk page of the Editor that made the edits, I reverted my own edit. As for the edit of Reece Thompson, that edit was a mistake. And I undid it. About the edit to User talk:72.252.26.216, I have had troubles with linking in the past, and ought to have read Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide. After you warned me, the only inexplicable edit that I made was the one to Nobita Nobi. That one is one of many that irresponsible edits that I've made, but the only inexplicable and irresponsible edit that I made after you warned me. I have made a lot of bad edits, and maybe the community has lost confidence in me. In fact, I know that because of what I have done, it is not easy for an Administrator to grant my request for unblocking. And like you said, you are not the one to decide if I ought to be unblocked. But I just want to be clear about what I did. This may also help me in the future, if somehow an Administrator, despite my history, decides to unblock me. This help me to learn. Jlktutu (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Just one more thing. When Editor Day Creature told me about using Twinkle, or Ultraviolet, I only took it as advice. To the best of my recollection, and I looked at my Contributions to refresh my recollection, I had never been warned about undoing vandalism one edit at a time. Once I was warned by Editor jlwoodwa, though I initially questioned what they said, when they asked again do I really not see "how it would be disruptive for someone to make one edit to add each individual character of a sentence", I said "I see that". Afterwards, I was not going to do such reverting again. But later when I came to edit, I notice that an ANI notice was posted by GraziePrego, and that I had been blocked. Jlktutu (talk) 05:57, 1 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't know how to regain trust, but I really want to say that I will not do the things that got me blocked. Removing chunks of text from Articles, then reverting it, making useless edits, like adding a white space, and reverting vandalism one edit at a time. Yes, I have made false promises of "I won't do that again", but I really want to be different this time. I can say that I learned a lesson, but it is hard to believe me, because I have said words to that effect in the past. I also want to say about a adding a whitespace, that I did this four times between April 20 and the time I was blocked. I should not have done that even once. I hope I have learned and that I will not repeat these actions, or any other disruptive ones, if I am unblocked. Jlktutu (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You haven't once explained to us WHY you do that garbage like making useless edits. You haven't explained why you've made false promises. You haven't explained why we should trust you to keep any of your promises. You very well might consider the standard offer -- in particular, the part that says you go to some other WMF project and prove your ability to edit there without feeling a need to make false promises and useless edits. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:15, 2 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I want to clearly say why I made false promises. About edits consisting of adding a white space, which occurred, for example, four times between April 20 and the time I was blocked, I promised that I wouldn’t do such edits after having done such white space edits ~100 times in February, + ~35 in March. I thought that doing only a few is OK. However, one of the lessons from this block is that even doing one edit of simply adding a white space is the same as the ~100 I did earlier —- it is gaming the system. It is adding to my edit count without constructively contributing. I should not have done that. And I am sorry for having done that. About reverting vandalism one edit at a time, Editor Day Creature told me to use tools like Ultraviolet and Twinkle, but I only took it as advice. After Editor jlwoodwa warned me, saying to revert vandalism in one edit, I initially questioned them, but eventually agreed with them and was planning to do what they said. But next time I logged in, I was blocked. I hope I have learned my lesson. If I’m unblocked, I will use automation with vandalism. And I will stop making useless edits. As for why I ought to be trusted, while I have had a bad history and have been reckless, I have taken advice from others on other matters. Again, I have learned my lesson, and why I was blocked. And I will be better if I am unblocked. Jlktutu (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with AP 499D25, you should take the standard offer, and re-apply in 6 months time. I suggest you use this time to edit constructively on another Wikimedia project. PhilKnight (talk) 12:05, 3 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.

I highly recommend that you take the standard offer and edit in other wikis (e.g. Simple English WP) as suggested in the second unblock request above. I'm not an admin, but this is just some advice I'm giving you. It seems to me at this current point in time, trying to successfully appeal your block will be pretty much impossible, due to the history of broken promises. Whereas, the standard offer can put you in a significantly better position for a successful unblock. Be aware that if you make enough unblock requests on your talk page that do not succeed (especially within a short span of time) your ability to edit this talk page may be revoked by an admin, and if that happens, there'll be even more steps involved in appealing the block than right now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)