User talk:Domata789

Domata789[edit]

Welcome to my talk page!

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Domata789, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Hi. There's a lot you have to learn about how the English Wikipedia works. Please read the guidelines referred to above before you try to create a new article. Deb (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know English very well. But yeah, I read the guidelines, and I don't understand what I did wrong. I tried to create a stub, that people can edit. --Domata789 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Jauerback, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Jauerback. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Domata789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize, I was confused. I will never waste time again, and I promise from now on I will be productive in edits, and 'build the ecyclopedia'. I now understand Wikipedia policies, and this block is no longer necessary to keep me from being unhelpful to Wikipedia. Domata789 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not confused: you knew full well what you were doing, and that was trolling and vandalism. You are unlikely to be unblocked unless you indicate that you understand and accept what was wrong with what you were doing, and give an indication of how you expect to edit in the future, and how it will differ from what you have done in the past. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Domata789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand and accept that my behavior is very well vandalism. And I read Wikipedia rules, so I know what is right and what is not. From now on, I will only edit faulty articles, and not touch perfectly fine ones, as I did in the past. I conclude that this block is only holding me back from making helpful edits, and thus is no longer necessary. Domata789 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not seeing any helpful edits in your contributions. To me it seems you're merely saying what you think we want to hear in order to get unblocked, without offering any true insight into what you'd do if unblocked. Huon (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

So these are the kinds of "helpful edits" the block was holding you back from making. Thanks for the clarification. Huon (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this crap, your talk page access has now been revoked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]