The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawna Hamic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about Cameron Diaz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about Taylor Swift until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryland Lynch (singer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Jan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

User talk:Malmmf 15:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when putting the "...recipient of various accolades, including a ...." try not to make it the first sentence in the lead. See this edit on Dakota Johnson's page as example, I moved that sentence to the bottom as that's an appropriate place to put it. The lead should focus on what the person is known for (films, series, stage, etc) and awards can be mentioned but should go last. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Anna Kendrick, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Captainllama (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Andrew Garfield. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 06:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hayes Grier, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andrew Garfield. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan^talk 03:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jakob Bergen, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Tulsi 24x7 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Andy García into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. As before. Totally unnecessary splits from article too small to justify it. Discuss first. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Hailee Steinfeld. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Marcia Cross, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Skyler Samuels, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Mason Vale Cotton. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mason Vale Cotton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Vale Cotton (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

An article you recently created, Jimmy Jan, is not suitable 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I remove List of awards and nominations received by Cara Delevingne from Category:Cara Delevingne? With only the one article, there is really no point in having an eponymous category. You can then add {{db-author}} to the category so it can be speedily deleted. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lea Michele controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lea Michele controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lea Michele into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you move a page disruptively again, as you did at Hollywoo, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dl2000 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated controversial page splits against consensus—the most recent of which created a significant BLP issue—and repeated violations of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, after multiple warnings. 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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Keke Palmer into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Another undiscussed and totally unjustified Split. You were blocked for this before. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: still keeps on doing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keke_Palmer&action=history --FMSky (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cara Delevingne indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to communicate.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm willing to unblock—or fine with any other admin unblocking—if you agree to stop making bold changes you know will be controversial and to discuss when reverted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. Sorry, I do not deliberately make "controversial" edits. Just trying to make it better. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you understand why your edits have been controversial? Can you tell me what you'll do in the future if someone reverts an edit or series of edits you've made? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I do not at all understand why the edits I have made are "controversial". I am just making all pages look similar. That is why I reformatted Lea Michele and added articles like List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer and List of awards and nominations received by Zac Efron. Similar edits have been made for other people like Emma Roberts (List of awards and nominations received by Emma Roberts) by other editors. Are those "controversial" too? Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An edit is controversial if people object to it. Many people have objected to many of the splits you've made of articles. Many people have objected to bold rewrites you've done of articles' ledes. In these cases you need to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. And if similar changes have been reverted in the past, you should start that cycle on "discuss". Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and making edits that others are bound to revert is disruptive, even if you sincerely believe your edits make the article better. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, understood. Can you please unblock me? Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please unblock me. I will stop making "controversial" edits. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I didn't see this since you didn't ping me. Alright.  Unblocked. Going forward, please remember what we've talked about, and let me know if you have any questions. The Teahouse is also a great place to ask for advice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked?

• @Tamzin:: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zac_Efron&diff=1121940666&oldid=1121936013 .. nothing has changed --FMSky (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Samueloveslennonstella. I have undone your split of the list of Zac Effron awards. While I respect your position on trying to streamline lists that appear to make the article long, this is not what the consensus on the talk page came to. If you disagree with the talk page result, you do have the option to make a Request for Comment or RfC to bring in the larger community. However, I would stay away from trying to change the material unless the result of further discussion is to do what you propose. Thank you for reading. Inomyabcs (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I need to clarify. RfC would not be appropriate for a split, this would probably have to go to WP:DRN. My apologies for any confusion. Inomyabcs (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Zac Efron into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Even after a block and warning, still doing same stuff. Consensus was against a split. Did anyway and still didn't even attempt to follow the procedures as WP:SPLIT Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 00:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for resuming your pattern of disruptive editing after assuring me that you would seek consensus before controversial edits in the future.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:49, 15 November 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have made multiple credible contributions to this encyclopedia, such as the addition of pages like Peter Berry (basketball), Olivia Rodrigo discography, List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo, List of awards and nominations received by the Kid Laroi and List of roles and awards of Troian Bellisario. So I don't understand how other similar edits I have attempted with reason, such as the addition of List of awards and nominations received by Zac Efron and List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer recently have warranted an indefinite block. I understand I have not communicated these edits prior. But nor did I communicate the successful ones aforementioned in the first sentence. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is why you were blocked, you still have not adequately communicated to solicit a consensus for your proposed changes. I think that now we are going to need you to agree to not attempt to further split articles until you can demonstrate the requisite level of communication(for example, but not limited to, agreeing to make use of edit summaries). 331dot (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will stop making undiscussed splits and I will agree to use edit summaries.

Decline reason:

You need to go into more detail. You were already unblocked once after making vague promises, and it didn't work out. You might tell us, for instance, what exact steps you intend to take. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

If unblocked, when I make edits I will first discuss on the talk page and see what other people believe is the best solution. Then, based on the consensus of my query through the talk page and my own personal opinion, I will also summarise my edits in the Edit summary section. However, I also believe that I should be allowed to make certain edits based on my own consensus, since you are allowed to block me based on your own consensuses.Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. JBW (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2022 (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.

Can you explain what you mean by "based on my own consensus"? I am at a total loss to think of anything it can possibly mean. Also, can you please remove one of the two identical unblock requests which are currently open. Having two open at once serves no useful purpose, and gives any reviewing administrator a little more work to do. JBW (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by "based on my own consensus" is that, when I go to make a split, I do it with articles I deem need it--based off my research of similar articles, like with Keke Palmer's list of awards and nominations, which after I was blocked for making the split, someone else did it and it remains that way today. So, clearly someone approved their edit but not my attempt at the same one earlier. If you need proof, see the article's revision history. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately much of that is about as impossible to understand as your previous comments, but I can only read "I do it with articles I deem need it", in the context, as indicating that by "based on my own consensus" you mean "purely on the basis of my own opinion, without regard to anyone else's opinion". Since the whole reason for the block is your persistence in doing exactly that, there can be no question of unblocking. In fact if you honestly think that a single person's individual opinion is "their own consensus" then you are so far away from understanding what consensus means that any undertaking from you to abide by consensus is completely meaningless. JBW (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made many worthy edits and additions that still exist to this date. However, a couple attempts at splits, which I now understand that I have to discuss first, have resulted in me being blocked from doing what I love... writing!!! Thus, I ask that you please unblock me and I will promise to discuss everything first. I know I've said that before, but the second time I was blocked was for splitting Keke Palmer article's awards into List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer, which after I was blocked for doing so, someone else make the same edit and it still exists today. So, I take it my attempt was not worthy of my account being indefinitely blocked. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have made many worthy edits and additions that still exist to this date. However, a couple attempts at splits, which I now understand that I have to discuss first, have resulted in me being blocked from doing what I love... writing!!! Thus, I ask that you please unblock me and I will promise to discuss everything first. I know I've said that before, but the second time I was blocked was for splitting Keke Palmer article's awards into List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer, which after I was blocked for doing so, someone else make the same edit and it still exists today. Additionally, it is not like I have been added falsified information, all of my edits have been factual and referenced. So, I take it my attempt was not worthy of my account being indefinitely blocked.

Some of the worthy edits I have made that still exist today:

• Peter Berry (basketball)
• Maisy Stella
• List of awards and nominations received by the Kid Laroi
• List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo
• Olivia Rodrigo discography
• List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer (I was blocked indefinitely for this, and almost immediately, after someone else did the same and it was approved)

Decline reason:

Given the concerns raised by prior admins, I think a potential way forward may be a conditional unblock, where you would be unblocked if you agree to a topic-ban against splitting any articles yourself, as this is the editing that appears to consistently get you into trouble. If you agree to these conditions, please make a new unblock request and I will seek the blocking admin's input. Otherwise, you may make a new request at your discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:52, 30 December 2022 (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.

Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I have made many worthy edits and additions that still exist to this date. However, a couple attempts at splits, which I now understand that I have to discuss first, have resulted in me being blocked from doing what I love... writing!!! Thus, I ask that you please unblock me and I will promise to discuss everything first. I know I've said that before, but the second time I was blocked was for splitting Keke Palmer article's awards into List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer, which after I was blocked for doing so, someone else make the same edit and it still exists today. Additionally, it is not like I have been added falsified information, all of my edits have been factual and referenced. So, I take it my attempt was not worthy of my account being indefinitely blocked. Some of the worthy edits I have made that still exist today: *Peter Berry (basketball) *Maisy Stella *List of awards and nominations received by the Kid Laroi *List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo *Olivia Rodrigo discography *List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer (I was blocked indefinitely for this, and almost immediately, after someone else did the same and it was approved) I agree to a conditional unblock, where I will not be able to split articles any myself. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 4:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

I'm accepting this unblock with the condition that Samuelloveslennonstella is topic-banned from carrying out page splits. I appreciate Tamzin's input and seriously considered adding a 1RR or 0RR provision to this unblock, but ultimately decided that 0RR would be too harsh and 1RR could be erroneously interpreted as a license to tendentiously revert individual edits; the crux of the matter is that discussion of edits that have been objected to is not optional, and that any further edit warring or other disruptive behavior will result in a block that will be significantly more difficult to appeal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I think the splits here are in many ways the symptom more than the cause. The underlying issue here is that Samuelloveslennonstella has failed to understand where the line is between edits one can make boldly and edits that require consensus. So I won't object to an unblock with a TBAN from splitting, but I wonder if there should also be a 1RR or BRD requirement, lest we just kick the can to some other set of disputes. (Something like If an editor reverts you with a coherent explanation, and none of the edit-warring exceptions apply, you may not restore the edit until you either have gained consensus, or have made your best effort to gain consensus but have not received any responses after a few days.) But I leave it to your discretion. Leaving it at the proposed sanction would also be reasonable, and I'm not trying to be too hard on SLLS; I'm more concerned that the previous conditional unblock didn't work, and they're unlikely to get a third offer if this one falls through. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill and Tamzin. Does this edit violate Samuelloveslennonstella's conditional unblock? They did begin a discussion to split, but as Geraldo Perez said, they didn't give it enough time to generate a consensus. KyleJoan^talk 05:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noone responded to my discussion, and given the size of Michelle Yeoh's article, especially the awards, honors and styles and awards and nominations sections, it is in need of an article. In fact, I bet within the month, given her growing awards success from Everything Everywhere All at Once]], someone else will attempt the split, and you'll allow them.

The same thing happened with Keke Palmer and List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer, within a week of you blocking me for splitting it and reverting the split, someone else did it and it remains like so today. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an explanation of why you think that the split you made on this occasion was justified. However, you are banned from making splits; you are not banned from making splits apart from ones for which you think you can provide a justification. Indeed, it would make no sense to have a ban which you are free to ignore provided that you think the split involved is justifiable, because presumably you always thought that the splits you made were justified. I shall therefore restore the block. JBW (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the reblock is warranted, unfortunately. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cameron Diaz, you may be blocked from editing. You have just come off a block for this kind of thing – would you like to see it upgraded to an WP:INDEF?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at List of awards and nominations received by Zendaya. Frankly, at this point, this editor should just be WP:INDEFed, as they seem unwilling to follow policies or work collaboratively. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Michelle Yeoh into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Also another undiscussed and unnecessary WP:SPLIT done incorrectly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Gold Derby Academy Awards predictions has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is hardly worthy of a Wikipedia page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason stated in the section "Conditional unblock" above you have again been blocked indefinitely from editing. In view of the history of your editing, your blocks, your unblocks, your repeated failures to abide by the understandings which led to those unblocks, and your apparent difficulty in understanding issues which have been explained to you, I think the likelihood of your being unblocked is probably low. JBW (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and thank JBW for this. This editor has a long history of being disruptive (and not just in terms of inappropriate article splits), and they were showing strong signs of WP:NOTGETTINGIT even after all of this time. IMO, an indef has been long overdue, and this editor should not be unblocked until they agree to a pretty darn long list of conditions, starting with a indefinite ban from WP:SPLITTING, and a WP:0RR or a WP:1RR restriction. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to those conditions. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you need to review Standard offer – I think you need to demonstrate sticking to that before we even should think about unblocking conditions (of which I only named two, but suspect there should be more than just those). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed it and will stick to any and all restriction you impose on me. Just please unblock me so I can help with edits. I will not split anymore without discussing. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuelloveslennonstella. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jimmy Jan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I will no longer make any undiscussed splits. I have reviewed standard offer.

I have made many worthy edits and additions that still exist to this date. However, a couple attempts at splits, which I now understand that I have to discuss first, have resulted in me being blocked from doing what I love... writing!!! Thus, I ask that you please unblock me and I will promise to discuss everything first. I know I've said that before, but the second time I was blocked was for splitting Keke Palmer article's awards into List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer, which after I was blocked for doing so, someone else make the same edit and it still exists today. Additionally, it is not like I have been added falsified information, all of my edits have been factual and referenced. So, I take it my attempt was not worthy of my account being indefinitely blocked. Some of the worthy edits I have made that still exist today: *Peter Berry (basketball) *Maisy Stella *List of awards and nominations received by the Kid Laroi *List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo *Olivia Rodrigo discography *List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer (I was blocked indefinitely for this, and almost immediately, after someone else did the same and it was approved) I agree to a conditional unblock, where I will not be able to split articles any myself.

My multiple contributions to Wikipedia include...

• Peter Berry (basketball)
• Olivia Rodrigo discography
• List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo
• List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer (I count this one as I was blocked for splitting, then someone redid it and was approved.)
• List of awards and nominations received by the Kid Laroi

Regards, Samuel (talk)

Decline reason:

You agreed to a conditional unblock before and broke it, so it's difficult to trust you now. The only way to even begin to rebuild any trust here is for you to wait the six months of the standard offer before requesting unblock- and when you do, agree to not be involved with splitting articles at all as well as a 0RR restriction. It's unfortunate that this affects your ability to write, but you should have considered that before your actions. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I will no longer make any undiscussed splits. I have reviewed standard offer. I have made many worthy edits and additions that still exist to this date. However, a couple attempts at splits, which I now understand that I have to discuss first, have resulted in me being blocked from doing what I love... writing!!! Thus, I ask that you please unblock me and I will promise to discuss everything first. I know I've said that before, but the second time I was blocked was for splitting Keke Palmer article's awards into List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer, which after I was blocked for doing so, someone else made the same edit and it still exists today. Additionally, it is not like I have been added falsified information, all of my edits have been factual and referenced. My multiple contributions to Wikipedia include... *Peter Berry (basketball) *Maisy Stella *Olivia Rodrigo discography *List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo *List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer (I count this one as I was blocked for splitting, then someone redid it and was approved.) *List of awards and nominations received by the Kid Laroi I know I have been blocked before, but I have never intentionally sought to do harm on Wikipedia, I have never made up facts, never falsified information, all I have done to be blocked is splitting, which I personally do not classify as a major controversy. I love writing and love adding to Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You have not agreed to a 0RR restriction, you have not agreed to avoiding splitting articles, and you have not waited six months. I decline on that basis. The soonest you'd now be eligible for this consideration is 2023-11-04. Yamla (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Yamla Noone mentioned an ORR restriction, let alone what that even is, I was just told to wait six months and its been 6 months since I was blocked so I don't know what you're talking about.

Decline reason:

You were blocked on 2023-01-28, which is just over 4 months ago, not six. Secondly you were told a condition to your unblock would be a 0RR restriction. Playing dumb to this is not going to get you unblocked, period. If you want to be unblocked, do not request another unblock until 2023-07-28 at the EARLIEST. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2023 (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.

It's very easy to see 331dot mentioned a 0RR restriction, and was not the first person to do so. It's also very easy to see you were blocked on 2023-01-28, well less than six months ago. --Yamla (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

To whom it may concern, it has been almost six months since I was blocked (on January 28, 2023). I am asking to be unlocked so I return to editing. I have learned my lesson. I will no longer do any undiscussed splits and will use the talk page to discuss any major edits before I make them. I admit to doing undiscussed edits in the past, however, there was no "bad" or "disruptive" intent behind it, I was just editing and trying to make the articles work better. Many of my successful edits and additions, such as Peter Berry, Maisy Stella, and Olivia Rodrigo's discography and awards and nominations, support this. Additionally, my attempted splits of Keke Palmer's awards and nominations and Michelle Yeoh's awards and nominations were followed by blocks, and yet the same edits were done again by someone else and (seemingly) approved. Thus, I do not personally believe that my "disruptive" edits are deserving of an indefinite block. Once again, though, I have learned my lesson. I will no longer do any undiscussed splits. Regards, SLLS

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, it is not yet 2023-11-04. Yamla (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

To whom it may concern, it has been almost six months since I was blocked (on January 28, 2023). I am asking to be unlocked so I return to editing. I have learned my lesson. I will no longer do any undiscussed splits and will use the talk page to discuss any major edits before I make them. I admit to doing undiscussed edits in the past, however, there was no "bad" or "disruptive" intent behind it, I was just editing and trying to make the articles work better. Many of my successful edits and additions, such as Peter Berry, Maisy Stella, and Olivia Rodrigo's discography and awards and nominations, support this. Additionally, my attempted splits of Keke Palmer's awards and nominations and Michelle Yeoh's awards and nominations were followed by blocks, and yet the same edits were done again by someone else and (seemingly) approved. Thus, I do not personally believe that my "disruptive" edits are deserving of an indefinite block. Once again, though, I have learned my lesson. I will no longer do any undiscussed splits. Regards, SLLS Yamla, I was told I only had to wait six months (until July 28, 2023) to ask to be unblocked. Since that is in 10 days, I thought I would go ahead. Since when did I have to wait until November? Isn't that a little harsh. Here is the quote, "You were blocked on 2023-01-28...If you want to be unblocked, do not request another unblock until 2023-07-28 at the EARLIEST. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)" I genuinely don't get why I'd have to wait ANOTHER four months... and then possibly be told by someone else that I have to wait longer. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 10:37 PM 18 July 2023[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this because this request does not address the concerns that previous admins described. This user has been told repeatedly what steps they need to follow for admin to begin considering an unblock, and these have not been followed. This includes agreeing to a 0RR restriction (in which the user has not made a clear statement that they agree to this) and waiting six months before making an unblock request (whether it is 2023-07-28, or 2023-11-04, they still did not wait until the specified time.) The community needs to have faith that this user can follow instructions on Wikipedia editing etiquette and manuals of style; if the editor cannot follow instructions in the unblock request, I have little faith that instructions will be followed when unblocked. Furthermore, their unblock request focused on the intent behind their edits instead of addressing the actions (and why the actions were disruptive).

This user is advised that they may not make another unblock request until 2024-01-23 (six months from today in GMT). I will not consider any unblock request unless it is made after the date I have bolded, includes a clear understanding on why they were blocked, an agreement that the user would be prohibited from moving any information from one page to another, and an agreement to 0RR. Other admin may also propose their own restrictions as they see fit. If the user wants to understand why they were blocked, please read the above information, read WP:CON and other Wikipedia policies, and come back in six months (or later) and ask questions if needed. In future unblock requests, please read WP:APPEAL and WP:GAB to help write a response that is more likely to be accepted. I will keep talk page access for now, but if the user causes more disruption, any admin may revoke talk page access without consulting me. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2023 (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.

"You have not agreed to a 0RR restriction, you have not agreed to avoiding splitting articles, and you have not waited six months. I decline on that basis. The soonest you'd now be eligible for this consideration is 2023-11-04". I posted that on May 4, 2023. For that matter, I'm still not convinced you've agreed to a 0RR restriction, nor have you agreed to avoid splitting articles. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I misread Yamla's decline earlier when I posted my unblock statement. Regardless of that, even so I did say in my unblock "2023-07-28 at the EARLIEST". It's not even the 28th! You still posted this too soon from that comment, and to be blunt you are becoming a timesink. I would approve of talk page access being removed at this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This whole situation has been GIGANTIC timesink. Being blocked for this long for doing something that HAD LITERALLY NO BAD INTENT BEHIND IT. I'm kind of frustrated. And now, being blocked for ever being able to become unblocked. It seems like an overreaction. So, honestly, you might as well just delete my whole account at this point. This is RIDICULOUS.

Especially considering the fact that the very edits I was blocked for (List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer and List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Yeoh were redone and still remains there today. Plus, all of the contributions I have made to Wikipedia (Peter Berry (basketball), Mason Vale Cotton, Maisy Stella, Olivia Rodrigo discography, List of awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo to name a few).

In order to avoid being blocked of access to MY OWN TALK PAGE, can you please explain the conditions of my block ONCE MORE so I know what to do in order to hopefully become unblocked once again. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Now that we have reached January 23rd, the date I was told I could request an unblock, I am requesting to be unblocked from editing. I agree to all the terms set, including an 0RR and all other conditions. I believe that I can make great contributions to Wikipedia as an editor, as I have in the past, however I do understand that I am not to make any undiscussed splits and I apologise and take responsibility for what I did to cause this block. I hope you can see that the 12 months I have been blocked have allowed me to learn from my mistakes, and that I am ready to get back to contributing to Wikipedia. All best, SLLS =) Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See the discussion below. You are unblocked to give you one last chance. You are likely to be blocked again, with a far lower chance of ever being unblocked, if you repeat any of the problems which you have been warned about, whether or not they have been mentioned as reasons for blocks. In particular, the block is conditional on your doing no editing of any kind related in any way to splitting of articles, on your abiding by a WP:0RR, and on your never copying material from one Wikipedia page to another without attribution. You may request for the lifting of the topic ban on splits and the 0RR after not less than 6 months from the time of this notice. JBW (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What were the conditions you violated, and what will you do different? What are the issues that have been explained to you? How will this time be different? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, I was blocked for doing undiscussed splits and reverts.

What will I do different? I will not do any undiscussed splits and reverts. I will not repeat these actions. If I believe an article could use a split, I will discuss it.

Simply put, I have learned my lesson.

However, I do also believe that I have made enough contributions to Wikipedia that still exist, such as Maisy Stella, Peter Berry (basketball), etc, to "prove" that I useful to Wikipedia and can make great contributions in the future, if I am given another chance. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: What say ye? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Well, I'm doubtful. It is clear that in the past this editor failed to understand what the problems were. Time has passed, and it's possible that they understand better now, but I'm no betting on it. I'm also inclined to wonder whether a total topic ban on anything related to splitting articles might be better than just "If I believe an article could use a split, I will discuss it." However, if you think it's worth giving them another chance by unblocking, with or without conditions, then please feel welcome to go ahead. It may work. However, I will just say that if they are unblocked they should not be surprised if they find that they are blocked again without further warning if they repeat any of the things they have been warned about in the past. JBW (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that seems reasonable. I am happy to agree to anything, as long as I know CLEARLY the conditions of my unblock. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be safest to go with the WP:TOPICBAN on article splits. I see you were banned from making splits, and you did so anyway. I guess by now you now you will be blocked again if you do so. 0 revert restrict ion will be/remains in effect. That means you cannot revert if reverted. Please discuss instead. Rosguill said above, "the crux of the matter is that discussion of edits that have been objected to is not optional". Intent is not the issue, well-intended disruption is still disruption. I must say I feel out to sea on all of the issues and problems. I guess unsourced edits is no longer a concern. I imagine unattributed copying with in Wikipedia is no longer a problem.

This was your third indefinite duration block. So, I'm not sure why I am seriously considering unblocking you. Most people with their second indefinite block are not unblocked. @Tamzin: Your name appears thirteen times on this talk page, and I value your opinion anyway. Have you anything to add? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big believer in second chances, DFO. Less so in third, fourth, etc. chances. I'm not going to stand in the way of an unblock, but it's not something I would do myself. Rosguill might also be a good person to ask. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have much more to add. The track record of past unblocks gives little reason to believe that they can be a net positive, good intentions notwithstanding. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, you've said you did not understand restrictions. Please in your own words explain the proposed unblock conditions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The restrictions are that I am banned from splits and reverts, as far as I have been told, and if I do either of these (without discussion or at all?) I will be blocked.

Also, a question, could there possibly be a way for me to prove myself over time if I am unblocked? Because, and as I have said before, I have made a number of worthy edits and contributions to Wikipedia that still exist. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you could appeal restrictions after six months of active editing without any problems. Play it safe. A topic ban on reverts or splits should be seen as absolute for now. I made it ambiguous, but to clarify, none at all for now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were other concerns about copying within Wikipedia without attribution and making changes contrary yo the manual of style. You will need to not repeat those mistakes. And I presume you won't mark as "minor" edits that are not minor. Descriptive edit summaries are a great idea. You can set your preferences to not save an edit w/o an edit summary. you might want tp review your talk page and see if there are any other problems you should not repeat. I think we are moving toward unblocking you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll summarize eventually. Too early here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand our colleagues think unblocking you is a terrible idea. So any further disruption may lead to a block that falls as lightning from a clear, blue sky. Please understand that the recurrence of any issue that you have been warned about, even if I missed it in my review and failed to list it here, could result in a block. But of prime importance, no splits and WP:0RR. No matter what. Even when you think they are a good idea. Now, to return to the TBAN on splits. That would include asking about them, or mentioning them anywhere accept in an appeal of this condition. With 0RR, I think that must be absolute, to prevent tenditious discussions that become disruptive. Now I gotta let @JBW: now what I've written here. Hmm. he or any other admin can still veto this as foolhardy. In that case, you would need to wait six months before requesting unblocking again. (deep breath that turns into s sigh.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already waited over a year since I was blocked... and six months since my last request. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers crossed and hoping for the best. Maybe it will stick this time. I don't think you grasp what a rare and precious gift a third chance, an unblock after a third indef ,would be. Unprecedented in my experience. We must wait on JBW. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Tamzin: a big believer in second chances, but less so in third, fourth, etc. chances, and like her I would probably not have done this on my own, but Deepfriedokra has done a lot of work at trying to give Samuelloveslennonstella an opportunity for yet another chance, and I will give it a try. However, to remove any possible lingering doubt which comments above suggest may still remain, a topic ban on splits means keeping completely away from them: not requesting them, not discussing them, not commenting on them etc. It does not just mean not doing them without discussion. JBW (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand.

  However, can I appeal this in the future? You know, after a "probation period", after I've proved myself again. Only asking to understand the future.

  =) Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of your edits since being unblocked have been reverted. You are frequently adding unreliable sources (for example, here where you claim your source is another Wikipedia article), see WP:RS. Or you are adding substantial unsourced content (for example, here, where the first half is uncited and the second half contains unreliable sources). You need to immediately stop, take the time to read and thoroughly understand WP:RS and WP:PROMO and WP:NOR, and ensure your future edits measure up. If your edits continue being almost uniformly reverted, you will be reblocked. I do thank you for avoiding reverting and splitting, but that's not enough if none of your edits are appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for letting me know. Sorry about the Phoebe Tonkin one. But, all the feedback I got when it was reverted was "not sourced", when it was, just wondering what clarifies a reliable source, as some of the sources I used were from other articles like Boy Swallows Universe (TV series). I'm not making up excuses, I'm just confused and don't want to be reblocked, and I want to contribute to articles properly. Thankyou. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. It links to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source which very clearly spells out that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. You've been around long enough, we expect you to understand these key policies. Now is the time to read the ones I've linked you to, including all the supplementary material. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop putting "He/she has received various accolades" as the first sentence into every actor article? --FMSky (talk)

• I see a need to reblock for WP:CIR.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBW: Next time I persuade you to unblock, slap me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, I havent done this in a while. It's not like I am being intentionally disruptive. I never have been. I'm just relearning. I'm trying to do the right thing.

  For example, my big edit at Phoebe Tonkin that was reverted was me trying to update it as it is outdated. Additionally, me writing "he/she has received various accolades", is just me doing what I've seen in other articles that have this. For example, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett and Cameron Diaz. However, I have been told to stop the latter, and I will.

  Don't reblock me for this. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know your edits were inappropriate. You aren't blocked yet. If they continue, it'll be evidence you are being intentionally disruptive or lack sufficient competence to understand Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully, your inappropriate edits won't continue. --Yamla (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you are being intentionally disruptive or unintentionally disruptive doesn't matter: either way any persistently disruptive editor needs to be blocked. I have already seriously considered restoring the block, but decided to wait a little longer to see whether you can improve; however, please note the word little: I have no intention of letting it become a remake of waiting for Godot. JBW (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what's the obsession of turning every actor's lead into an unending listing of awards? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krimuk2.0, I was just adding further information about Judy Davis's work in the lead as ONLY her awards were in there before. Look at the previous edit.

Plus, what IS the point? That information is like that in 90% of other articles I've seen. Danielle Brooks, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, Ashley Benson, Paul Giamatti, Emma Roberts, and many MANY more.

I have no understanding why I am being questioned for just doing what I have seen in OTHER ARTICLES?

What the point of that? If what I am doing is wrong? Why is that information in other articles galore? I'm so confused. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "galore". Stick to the most notable ones, that's all. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say =) Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, your edits on Judy Davis look fine to me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

British Academy Film Awards

added a link pointing to Bombshell (film)

Margot Robbie

added a link pointing to Babylon (film)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. On Jake Gyllenhaal, you wrote that he received acclaim for his work in Donnie Darko and Nightcrawler. Can you point to the sources in the article that verify these claims? If not, please remove them and refrain from including unsourced material like this in other articles. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 19:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I will remove them. I used "acclaimed" as in they received accolades for their performances. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuelloveslennonstella,

Thank you for creating Ayesha Madon.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

There are more references in Rolling Stone Australia and some other sites about her singing career, we need more that talks about her as a person, besides simple interviews.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Oaktree b}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Oaktree b (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]