If you leave a message here, I will answer it here ASAP.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and (again) reply ASAP. WARNING (only depends on the subject): I'm impatient when I don't get certain responses quickly. The subject's I'm patient are with ones that are not urgent (can't specify them right now), while the subjects that I am impatient with are ones that I do consider urgent (can't specify them right now either, sorry).

Archives

Unimportant Still important but I have to free up space on the main page WARNINGS I MUST KEEP! THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigerdude9, If you wanted to combine the Aircraft section with the Crew section that would be okay. - Samf4u (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will. Thank you Sam!Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit odd that you add two facts and ask others to prove them. Richard 06:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can prove things myself and in some cases I have done so, but finding proof it can be a hard task sometimes. I'll try and look for some citations. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Like I said, to me it seemed a bit odd. It might be worth considering trying to find proof before adding such things. Richard 22:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Buah Nabar, Sibolangit, Deli Serdang, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tag articles that haven't passed featured article review as featured articles. That's not an action that can be done as a drive-by edit - anything higher than B class requires a process. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process and how do I do it? Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FA - it involves extensive review by editors with experience in featured article writing and in the manuals of style - it's not a simple or easy process. You aren't experienced enough to undertake such work. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I wish you had told me earlier, because I already submitted it (I read the steps at least). Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Frayae was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Dominicana DC-9 air disaster instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dominicana DC-9 air disaster and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dominicana DC-9 air disaster, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Far Eastern Air Transport Flight 104 instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Far Eastern Air Transport Flight 104 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Far Eastern Air Transport Flight 104, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buah Nabar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:N312RC before it crashed.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion. Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tigerdude9. You have new messages at Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Current_template_on_top_of_the_article.
Message added 21:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXrayᗙ 21:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload another non-free image I will block you. Please stop doing things that you clearly know are wrong and then seeking permission or forgiveness, and please stop using autism as an excuse. We're being patient, but there are limits. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I actually got scared. However Non-free images where I DO have permission to use them is an exception though! Tigerdude9 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you don't. Don't upload non-free images without explicit permissions that we can verify. It's that simple. Don't get scared, just don't upload pictures that you didn't take and you'll be fine. Don't try again and expect a different outcome. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just uploaded two images of 9M-MRO's interior that I did not take. The images were found on the German article on MH370 amd they were under the GNU license. Take a look at it, read the image's license and then you can take action against me if necessary. I'm serious. I read your reply, but I deliberately disobeyed your advice, because of the different licenses types. Does that settle it? (and this time no offense) Look, I just want to reach a fair conclusion. Also the public thanks i sent to you was not sarcastic. I myself was having some difficulty tagging the image for speedy deletion, so thank you for helping me remove it. Tigerdude9 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be stretching patience a little bit here Tiger, Acroterion clearly warned you not to upload images that are not free but you still uploaded File:Air France Flight 447's pilots.jpg which clearly had "All Rights Reserved" on the page. Best that you stop uploading images of any type until you understand the copyright rules here as you may get blocked without any warning. Carry on with your work on accident articles but best if you just keep away from the images, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Air France Flight 447's pilots.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting 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 with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop nominating articles for FA when you clearly haven't done the necessary review and editing work that's needed to prepare an article for FA. Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, stop fooling around with FA when you clearly don't understand the process. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already notified you that I submitted it on the peer section previously, but I will be more specific now: I already nominated it in the aviation project's peer review section on October 17, reading the instructions. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Peer_review#FAR). Now I just read the official instructions, and to understand, to I read the instructions carefully. This time I did not read it fast. I know that there are 5 steps, but I skipped step 1 on purpose, but that's because I felt it met the requirements, however I, when I saw your message went back and checked. It has 43 citations, which is twice as more than the Danish version (which is a recommended article), but it does have less citations than flight 11. You reverted when I completed step 4 ad was about to do step 5, but stopped when I saw your message FYI, but since you do want me to stop fooling around, fine! Also, since we already have a section called FA we should move it to there to prevent confusion. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is expected that people who nominate articles for FA status will have ensured that the article meets the featured article criteria, usually through deep personal involvement in the article and discussions with other involved editors. FA status is a big deal, and involves an in-depth review of the article to ensure it's an example of Wikipedia's best work. Please don't nominate any other articles for this status until you understand the process better and, ideally, have made a considerable and high-quality contribution to the articles. As some personal advice, the combination of copyright violations and repeated premature FA nominations suggests that you are struggling in Wikipedia and are at risk of being blocked. Please ease yourself in, and take advantage of the various sources of advice for new editors in the post at the top of this page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I already started to eased my self in (kind of). I've already watched the video about editing articles (which I already know how to do), and I already know that sources are needed. I am currently editing United Airlines Flight 175 to make sure it meets FA requirements.

Please be careful, you won't become proficient in creating FA-worthy articles from watching a video, and your history of paying attention to advice isn't encouraging. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And please be especially careful with existing FAs like United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and ok. I only updated their infoboxes using the current template. I'm being as careful as I can, not trying to sound disruptive. Or make things sound informal. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Not a problem, but please resist the urge to cram too much content into the infobox - it's a a perennial issue. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a second FA nomination immediately after the September 11 one was closed and the reasons why it was doomed to failure were explained to you above is highly disruptive conduct. I note that you'd made no substantive edits to the United Airlines Flight 175 prior to today, and did not start a discussion over whether it was a viable FA with the editors with a longer history with the article on its talk page. Combined with your attempt to classify an article as a FA yourself a few weeks ago, it is obvious that you do not understand what FA status means and how the FA process works, and are making no efforts to educate yourself or work collaboratively with other editors. When the block expires, please take the time to familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia's article assessment processes work and what is expected at each level of article quality. If you ask for advice, as you should, you'll find no shortage of editors who'll be happy to offer help. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick-D's action - it's disruptive to keep making out-of-process nominations without having done the very substantial amount of sustained work that's needed for FA nomination. This is yet another example of a series of actions that you've undertaken after explicitly being told not to do them. If this continues, you may be blocked indefinitely. If you won't listen to advice from other editors, or if you decide to do something anyway after being told not to, you're wasting everybody's time, including your own. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I'm disruptive and I deliberately disobey instructions. I'm a failure at Wikipedia and I only make a small amount of successful edits (I can still chat on my own talk pages at least) . Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2018 (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).

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I started doing the big stuff too early, which I shouldn't have done. And it can be hard for me to tell what is disruptive and what is not I need to read more slowly and think twice. On top of it all it's hard to listen to information. I just want to do the right thing, but I often fail(I'm pretty sure this is going to be declined)! Tigerdude9 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're right, I'm declining this because you've consistently failed to learn from experience. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2018 (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).

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You are correct about my constant disruptive editing, about how I consistently failed to learn, and all of my wrongdoings, but I need to talk about me. I'm still struggling with wikipedia. I was not aware if my edits being disruptive, until it was too late, and I should have actualy listened to you. I should start actually taking advice. Do I know my actions were wrong? Yes, I do. Will I promise that I won't do it again? No, I can't make a promise, but I will try very hard. Will I end up doing disruptive editing again? Unfotunately yes, but hopefully with less likely chance of it happening. I read the block appeal guide, and I realized how to make a better response. I will not nominate UA175 for FA class review again, until I hear from others. I have made some talk pages before I've certain made edits, and I should start doing this more if I fear that an edit would turn out disruptive. Remember, I joined to help, and I want to help. Tigerdude9 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2018 (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.

If you agree to not nominate any article for a FA candidacy until other editors who are either highly experienced with that article or are one of the FA mentors agree that the article is ready, I'd be prepared to lift the block (or have another admin do this if they review this request before I can respond). This is a pretty easy mistake to avoid. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will try to avoid this mistake. Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no try. Do, or do not. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will avoid this mistake. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opposite of what is being asked. If you continue to equivocate on this, or on the other issues that have arisen with your edits, any future block would be longer or indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: Sorry! I meant to say "I WILL avoid this mistake." I just got confused for a second. I'm aware that equivocating on this or my other issues will result in a longer or indefinite block. The first thing I'm going to do when my block ends/gets appealed is to start a talk page on United Airlines Flight 175 on why the article should be FA, I will not nominate it until I have more opinions. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, the last thing you should do when you're unblocked is to start talking about FAs. Multiple experienced editors have already told you that it's not ready, and your actions of yesterday indicate that you don't understand this. That's one reason why you're blocked. The key to being unblocked and staying that way is to stop doing the things you were blocked for. What you just said isn't "you agree to not nominate any article for a FA candidacy until other editors who are either highly experienced with that article or are one of the FA mentors agree that the article is ready." Not just "more opinions." Don't try to alter the terms of the offer. Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: Than I will not do that. I will remove the request from the box when my block ends or if I'm unblocked early. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I'm extending the block to a week because of the file noted below that you uploaded last night, after being directly told not to upload non-free files. The source file is clearly copyrighted. I'm also recommending to the next reviewing admin that the request above be declined. Acroterion (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this time I actually had permission! Did you read the file details before it got deleted? And where can I even find the reduced image? I could even give you a screenshot showing proof! Except I can't because I'm still blocked! Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were plainly told not to upload non-free files. You did it anyway. Evidence of permission doesn't involve your personal assertion, it means that the copyright holder has to provide permission via OTRS so that we can all verify it. Since you appear to continue to test boundaries and look for loopholes or exceptions, I think a lengthy block is needed to make you understand that we're serious about this. You aren't competent to navigate image use requirements, you have tried to shortcut the FA process disruptively, and you keep circling back to your personal rankings of air disasters. Acroterion (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: Look I know we don't see eye to eye, (yes you might think this is a loophole). I'm autistic and you are not (even though you worked with other autistic users). I'm going to be honest, this isn't the right thing to do: block someone who is struggling. I was considering asking those people that Nick-D recommended for me, but in order to do that I have to be unblocked. Please. This is urgent. I am DEAD SERIOUS. I'm anxious to fix my wrong doings. I want to be trusted. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: You know what? Forget it. I'm just going to wait for my ban to end. I apologize for any arguments we had or anything I said that was offensive. And again, I apologize for all my wrongdoings. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's mad at you, we just want you to edit productively and to stay away from activities that have gotten you in trouble. That means rigid adherence to advice, not offering to "try," or to wait a few days to do it again. If you don't, you won't be able to edit the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the extension of this block. Tigerdude9, if you have health issues which affect your engagement with Wikipedia, I'd very strongly encourage you to take a careful approach and ask other editors for advice. The Wikipedia teahouse page is a good informal place to discuss how to approach articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reassuring me. the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 got me even more anxious to be unblocked so I could fix any typos or mistakes, but I'm going to take your advice Nick-D and make a careful approach. So I'm just going to keep calm as best as I can. RIP to all the 189 people on board who lost their lives. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the Official Editor of Air Accidents, and the content will get written with or without you. Please step away from the encyclopedia, and when your block expires you should not take a leading role in editing air accident articles. Acroterion (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @Nick-D: I know that, but yet I end up that way. I can't walk away because my health issues don't feel to be improving. Last night I deleted and re-downloaded the Wikipedia app on my phone multiple times. Fortunately, I took Nick-D's advice and I was going to start a discussion on the tea house on how to approach an article, unfortunately my block prohibits me from doing so. I could do it here, but it doesn't feel proper as other people usually talk messages here, not me (except on rare occasions). So I have to wait until my block is over. Update: I fucked up again (sorry for swearing). Look below. Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it came to this, but please PLEASE, understand! I know we don't see eye to eye, but still!

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).

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was given advice to go to the tree house and start a discussion about how to approach an article, but I can't start that section until I'm unblocked, I've been told to "step away from Wikipedia," and I tried but failed because I'm suffering emotional issues regarding my block that are hard for me to let go. I'm autistic and I'm an impatient person (even if I didn't have autism I would still be like this). Me and other users can have trouble seeing eye to eye with each other. I was struggling before I was blocked, and I felt that it was not the right thing to do: blocking a struggling person. I fear my block will get extended even further. I know the block is necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but is no longer necessary because I *# understand I have been blocked for: disruptive editing and uploading a non free work *# will not continue to cause damage or disruption in the future, and *# will make contributions that are actually useful. Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this addresses the reason for your block. And saying you can't step away sounds like a threat. Your emotional problems are your problem, not ours I'm afraid. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2018 (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.

@Yamla: I should have been more specific. I did not know that "I can't step away" would sound like a threat, and I did not intend for it to sound like once, Plus, I know that my health is my own issue. Believe me, I actually tried, and deleted the app from my phone, and played games in an attempt to forget it, but it stayed on my mind. So I reinstalled the app. And if you read the previous unblock attempts you'll know why I got blocked. It's just hard for me to see eye to eye. I just want to make my fix my wrongdoings right now! It can be hard for you to understand me, and it can be hard for me to understand others. I'm usually a nice guy and I don't want to put up a fight, but that's not always the case unfortunately. The stuff under number one was tge reason I got blocked. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed talkpage access, not as a sanction, but to allow this user some time away from WP and this talkpage, since it's clear that they're not going to let go voluntarily. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tigerdude9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23101 was submitted on Oct 31, 2018 20:19:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 United Airlines Flight 175, you may be blocked from editing. Do not delete sub-heads without giving a valid reason. David J Johnson (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forget to do that sometimes. I can rush sometimes. The best reason I've got is because I'm to determined or anxious. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 United Airlines Flight 175, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop now. You are taking no notice of the advice you have been given and are making changes without thinking and without a valid reason. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]