User talk:~2025-43053-85

It is important for this article to be updated when there is new info because the Memorial Circle Arch also known as Arc De Trump has a timeline to be completed for 250th anniversary of USA on July 4th 2026, this article also had and still probably has issues that resulted in recent edits to remove issues in the article ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:45, 25 December 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).

~2025-43053-85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Back then, i wanted to put information that i wanted on Wikipedia, but it also led me to breaking rules in a attempt for stuff to be on Wikipedia, not to mention the fact that i don't know how to put sources/references, anyways, i don't know what to say more about it ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In order to be unblocked, you need to say more about it: explaining how you understand what rules you broke, how you now understand why those rules exist, and how you will follow them going forwards, as well as how you understand our referencing policies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 26 December 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.

honestly i don't know what rules i broke, but i think it could be because i was keep telling stuff and annyoing i dont know what word to describe

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).

~2025-43053-85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Back then, i wanted to put information that i wanted on Wikipedia, but it also led me to breaking rules in a attempt for stuff to be on Wikipedia and my behavior, not to mention the fact that i don't know how to put sources/references, i honestly don't know what exact rules i broke, but i think it was because i was keep telling stuff and being annoying and bad, i think, i don't know what word to describe because it is difficult to describe it, it's like i was telling stuff that i wanted and putting stuff on talk pages and articles and it didn't followed the wikipedia guidelines not to mention my behavior being bad whatever to describe it when they removed my stuff in talk pages, not only that but i don't know how to put sources/references because it is difficult, anyways, i'm hoping that this message finds you well because i don't know what to say more about it ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance if you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate and confirm that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

• Read our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles.

After you have read the rules, pick any article on Wikipedia that you want to improve. If you have trouble choosing an article, there are lists under Category:Articles needing cleanup.

Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy three or four paragraphs of the article that you want to improve.
   • Do not copy the infobox ({{infobox name|...}}).
   • Do not copy any images or files ([[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]).
   • Do not copy the article's categories from the bottom of the page ([[Category:Name]]).
   • Do not copy the stub tag ({{Topic name stub}}).
3. Click edit on your talk page and create a new section using this format: == [[Article title]] ==. Paste the text that you copied underneath. Do not save yet.
4. Place {{reflist-talk}} at the end of the copied text.
5. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and create an edit summary in the following format: Copied content from [[Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution.
   • This is required for copyright attribution.
6. Save the page by clicking Publish changes.
7. Edit the section you have copied. Propose adding new information to the article. Add inline citations to reliable sources that verifies the information. We are not looking for basic typo corrections or small additions without citations.
8. When you are done with your work, save your edits. Then create a new unblock request using {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} and an administrator will review your proposed edits.

If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may ask a question on this talk page. Just place {{Help me}} with your question below it, then add your signature using ~~~~. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2026 (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.

• Note that this TA is subject to a block placed on its underlying IP before TAs were instituted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

what does TA mean? also, this is a unblock request so i was expecting whatever i would be accepted or declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

TA means "temporary account". This is a notice for people reviewing your block. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk)

Oh, ok, now i know what that means, anyways i wonder when will there be a decision to be accepted or declined? because i was expecting for someone to decide about it 16:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to have a definite idea of when a decision will be made, but unfortunately it isn't possible to give you an answer. An unblock request is dealt with when an administrator gets onto it, which can be at any time. There's only a fairly small number of administrators who review unblock requests, with the result that there's always a significant backlog of requests waiting to be reviewed, so it often takes quite a long while. JBW (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

As I already declined once, I believe it would be proper for another admin to review your new request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger This user is WP:NOTHERE. See (or really the entirety of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and other recent edits. I don't know how they got unblocked or what. Katzrockso (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR apply, actually. Katzrockso (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to help Wikipedia by putting information that isn't on Wikipedia. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

In the past you said that you understand what the problems with your editing were, and would not do the same again. You then went ahead and did the same again. That happened several times. That being so, to stand any chance of having an unblock request accepted, you need to make it clear that this time you really do understand. Unfortunately, what you have done is the exact opposite of that: you actually say "i honestly don't know what exact rules i broke". From your editing history there seems to be an overlap between some degree of genuinely not being able to understand and some degree of understanding but refusing to cooperate. For example, you have made it perfectly clear that you know that Wikipedia policy requires citations to sources but you choose to add content to articles without citations, because you don't want to bother to find sources; on the other hand it looks to me as though you may genuinely not be able to understand that much of your use of talk pages has consisted of posting comments related to the subjects of the related articles, but not directly related to editing those articles. Any administrator who reviews this request may either accept it or decline it as they think is suitable, but I don't think there's any reasonable likelihood of it being accepted unless you can indicate that you now have a clear understanding of what the problems were. JBW (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, what i meant by the sources thing is that i CAN find sources but dont know how to properly put it because its difficult and i tried to learn it but i still dont know how to put it, i actually saw multiple times where people didnt put sources probably because its difficult, that being said though i can put web link text on it instead of sources, also i will try to not break rules because other times in the past led it to me being banned and i dont want to be banned, also i use talk pages for discussion to improve a article, i UNDERSTAND that i woundlt break rules or else i will be banned as i got sometimes, interestingly i DID contributed to improving at least 2 articles that i can remember, by putting notices to expand and translate notice and in the talk pages, those articles being Aum Shinrikyo and Denno Senshi Porygon, which is nice, i should also admit i had ideas for things to be mentioned both in english wikipedia and czech wikipedia (by the way, there are these one or two users that keep wrongfully ban me for "trolling", despite me not being a troll, but i guess its a whole other rabbithole surrounding what happened there), that have admitatly a situation kind of like how BFDI was before late 2025, (although it should be noted that it wasnt often and it was like a idea because i knew how wikipedia is so it is only limited to few mentions in talk pages except when i made a czech wikipedia article about SDH Triplicity) such as SDH Triplicity (formerly named and more commonly known as The Rodfellows from 2014 to 2021 and The Jungle Forest Gang from 2021 to 2023) this unintentionally strange web cartoon series that has a kind of large, hidden and equally strange fandom, which does explain why you most likely haven't heard about it despite its size, a similar example but more stranger and kind of smaller and something that i didnt even tried to mention in talk pages in wikipedia due to reasons that i will describe is Greeny Phatom (yes, i didn't mispronounced it), which has a weird tendency for the fandom to fake history and information surrounding Greeny Phatom, even though the actual history is less than "stellar?" (i truly dont know what word to describe it), hence the reason why the fandom decided to fake the history and information because i guess the fandom have a imagination to make it different than how it is in reality?, i dont knwo how to properly describe it, but enough of Greeny Phatom, like its something that i didn't even mentioned in wikipedia so why bother even talk about it? well, because its interesting, anyways back to SDH Triplicty, it seems that maybe sometime later just like how BFDI got allowed to be mentioned on wikipedia, maybe sometime later SDH Triplicity could become mentioned in wikipedia, but honestly i'm kind of optimistic considering the current situation surrounding SDH Triplicity and i simply find SDH Triplicity to be interesting and wanted it to be mentioned on wikipedia, because why not? why coundlt it be on wikipedia? oh my i'm rambling about stuff that probbaly should be better not to, but i just had to, anyways maybe that should be mentioned on the talk page of "Wikipedia:Why was BFDI not on Wikipedia?" instead of here, i mean the things i mention here really give me a kind of wrong idea on who i am, but whatever, anyways i just want stuff to be on wikipedia because i want good information about the subject matter and for people to read about it, hence the reasons mentioned, which is something what wikipedia is about, a good information about the subject matter for people to read about the subject matter, and because of it, there are people that of course want the subject matter to be on wikipedia, and therefore is the reason why stuff like this happen on wikipedia, its something that will happen on wikipedia, i understand that i broke rules, and honestly what i just wrote in this WALL OF TEXT makes people get a kind of wrong idea on who i am, and honestly i don't know what to say more about it, i mean i don't even know if what i wrote in it was good, so i don't know, i don't know what to say more about it, but the things i mentioned is something that i want to talk about it, to discuss about it, because honestly it's kind of interesting to talk about it, anyways, i don't know if what i wrote in it was good and i don't know what to say more about it ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone responded? Also, Happy New Year, Enjoy the celebration ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You wrote a wall of text above about content, which is immaterial to your block. Your block is about you. Nothing you wrote in that wall of text provides any reason to unblock you; rather, it demonstrates that you need to demonstrate better familiarity with behavioral norms as well as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a proper appeal, before unblocking you would be considered. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, this was before in 3 weeks ago, even i thought back then it was not good at all, but still decided it anyways because it was interesting, i have since changed from 3 weeks, also, could SDH Triplicity be mentioned or have a article in English Wikipedia? There used to be a article on SDH Triplicity on the Czech Wikipedia. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The Teahouse is a forum to ask questions or request advice. It is not a place to promote discussions are ask others to improve an article. Thanks. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 19:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

But i don't know what other place there is for this, so i'm using the Teahouse. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There are other places to ask other than the Teahouse. You should not use the Teahouse. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 19:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Which ones? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Whatever that is appropriate for the occasion which is not the Teahouse. The talk page or WikiProject can suffice. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 20:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

which ones, which talk page and/or wikiprojects? I coundl't find wikiprojects about stuff i want to contribute to. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The WikiProjects can be found on the talk page. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 20:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Which talk page? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The talk page of the articles you want improvement in. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

What does that mean? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The article's talk page. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You mean the article's talk page? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2026 (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).

~2025-43053-85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I'm aware that i have been making disruptive edits and i'm not going to continue doing it because my actions have been disruptive to Wikipedia. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

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

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. asilvering (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2026 (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.

~2025-43053-85 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please explain why, given the above unblock request, you should retain talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Just because i'm blocked dosen't mean my talk page can't be accessed, that is written in Wikipedia. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

You are clearly deliberately wasting our time. You were blocked for being disruptive. You've continued that after your block. If I see even one more example of this, your talk page access is gone. That definitely includes making a new unblock request that's substantially identical to a previously declined request. No need to respond to this; in fact, responding to this will very likely harm your chances. --Yamla (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The problem is that you're unfortunately not able/willing to understand how Wikipedia works and this means that you're being disruptive and taking up the time of volunteer editors.

I don't know if this caused by you knowing what to do but not wanting to do it, or because you genuinely don't understand, but that doesn't change the effect that you're having.

We're all volunteers, working on Wikipedia in our spare time. It's not really fair that other people have to spend so much time and effort trying to deal with your requests, when they could be doing almost anything else.

We can't make you understand how Wikipedia works and it's unfortunately clear that you're not able to learn this for yourself. If you genuinely want to help Wikipedia, please stop trying to edit for the foreseeable future.

Read up on the Standard offer, it's usually a minimum of six months and I think that's a good timeframe for you to step away from editing and try to learn how it actually works.

You should also consider the possibility that you're just not a good fit for Wikipedia. Editing is complicated and not everyone can do it, but that's totally fine because I'm sure there are things that you can do that I'd never be able to think about doing myself.

It's incredibly valuable for everyone to learn about their own limits, so I really think this is a time where you need to ask yourself if you've hit one of yours.

BTW Talk page access can indeed be revoked, it's written into Wikipedia as an ability granted to admins. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)