Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Super Bowl XXXI has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Super Bowl XXXI was changed by Tallahassle (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.930381 on 2017-06-21T22:38:09+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could stop changing "is" to "was" in the lead sentences of articles, that would be helpful, and then it wouldn't be necessary to report you for vandalism. Trivialist (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont, there is no need - in some cases they were called 'town' but in Australian legal and general usage they are in actual fact 'localities'

The category and presence of localities in the town category means that they were designated'towns' by law when they were originally surveyed or created - but in many cases they do not constitute a town under law or usage anymore

If you are not a local western australian and havent actually experienced the localities - it would be appreciated if you find something else :) JarrahTree 02:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also linking 'locality' is a no brainer - it links to a disambiguation page JarrahTree 02:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone all your last few edits; see the overlinking guideline. Graham87 02:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lot more effort has gone into your user page than editing in general, what you need to do is to find something that does not get you into trouble - something that you know - or something that gives you an opportunity to explore what all the rules are about - like 'over-linking'

• The projects Philadelphia and Penn State have lots of unassessed articles - Penn State project is slow

there are things that can be done there - if you go 'overseas' you really have to take care. JarrahTree 02:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with JarrahTree; please stop. None of your recent edits have been productive. If you continue on this course, you could get in serious trouble. Graham87 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the baklava. When I first started on Wikipedia, one of my favourite activities was working on what is now the typo team; I could see you enjoying it also. Whatever you decide to edit here, be careful not to break things, and have fun. Graham87 03:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've continued to add links. If you don't stop, you'll be blocked. Graham87 05:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF - when people ask you to stop over-linking it is meant in good faith. When you continue, you leave yourself open to things that might waste all that effort on your user page JarrahTree 05:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very hungry for a cookie. Please send me a cookie. If you are reading this, please send me a cookie. -Tallahassle

Hello Tallahassle. You were advised earlier about this on your talk page, yet you have continued to add unnecessary links into articles. For now, I strongly advise that you stop adding new links to Wikipedia articles. In the meantime, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's linking guidelines, particularly the section describing "What generally should not be linked". Adding links to Everyday words understood by most readers in context is unhelpful, and doing so across a wide range of articles despite warnings can be considered disruptive editing. As a result, if you continue to add unnecessary links, you may be blocked from editing to prevent disruption. I do not think you are a vandal, but note that editors may be sanctioned for disruptive edits, even if they were made in good faith. Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In two recent edits you added unnecessary links to articles: [1] (to "stage actor", which redirects to Actor) and [2] (to "settlement"). These are common, everyday words that almost all readers would understand in context, and as such, they do not need to be turned into links to a Wikipedia article. I'm afraid this is your final warning. The next time you add an unnecessary internal link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mz7 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop handing out barnstars willy-nilly. If you want to find a web site for playing games, please look elsewhere on the internet. Your edits are beginning to be tiresome. Please see WP:NOTHERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Owe Thörnqvist, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Ireland, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 22:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I came here to say the same thing regarding your edit to Italic type. Graham87 03:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Marianna251. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bathville have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Marianna251TALK 23:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Aberdeen, Grey County, Ontario.

• 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 notice boards.
• 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, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Across many articles, you have added the word "located" by saving one letter after another – this clutters page histories, so please stop. The word "located" isn't usually even necessary to understand the article in most of these cases. Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Please slow down, use the preview option before editing an article, respect consensus when making changes, and listen to the good people who have made suggestions on your talk page. I'm sure you have good intentions, but many of your edits are unintentionally being disruptive to our encyclopedia. Slon02 (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:11, 30 July 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am very sorry for disrupting multiple articles and making a fool out of myself. I don't want to be blocked anymore. I promise. I will never make disruptive editing again. Please. I will do good. Unblock me if you can. I want to come back and redeem myself. I will never vandalize ever again. I want to give articles more information. I want to be the person that helps inform other people. And now I realize I have been doing it all wrong. I am sorry. I apologize. I will make sure that I will never vandalize articles. I want to come back. Please. I know I did things wrong. And I am very sorry. I request an unblock in this instant. I don't want to be bad. I don't want to vandalize anymore. I want to be good. I want to have self-control. I want to edit articles. But most importantly, I want to help. Please accept me. -Tallahassle

Decline reason:

You were doing nothing but adding word "located" to different article. And you were doing that one letter at a time . We don't need this kind of "contribution", Vanjagenije (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2017 (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 person thinks that my "plea to be unblocked read like a parody" and that it paraphrased a song. To be honest, I actually never heard the song before. I never saw the lyrics, I never listened to it, and I don't want to know what the song is about. B137 thinks "the whole thing is a trolling operation." Even though it is not. It was never a trolling operation in the first place. I'm not trying to troll. I never wanted to. I never wanted anybody to think that I was trolling. And I'm not trying to lie. I don't want people to hate me because of my actions. All I want to do is edit again. Tallahassle (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Vanjagenije (talk). I am not going to do it again. I will stop my "Located" editing. I promise. I realized what I was doing and now I want to stop. Tallahassle (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassle, having interacted with you a few times this past week, I think you may be too young to edit Wikipedia right now. I know that's probably disappointing for you to hear, but I, as well as several other administrators, am concerned that you are not yet mature enough to edit in a way that will be beneficial to Wikipedia. I suggest that you wait a few years and file a new unblock request when you are older. Please consider reading also Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Sorry about this. Best, Mz7 (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I realize how my editing has turned out. But no matter what age I am, I'm still a Wikipedian. And I still want to edit again. Please help me out and edit again. I want to come back now. I don't want to wait. I want to stay here and pursue a longer journey. A better journey. And I really don't understand why you think I'm "too young" to be in Wikipedia. That was very sick of you to say that. I don't want people to judge me by anything. I just want to edit. Why do I have to wait? Wikipedia is one of the best websites on the internet. And you won't even let someone like me be in it? I thought you were better than that. Just think about it. I'm a young person with a bright mind. I came here to show who I am. And people like you are trying to let me down. I don't want that. I don't want to wait until the day comes. People like you should understand that people can have brighter minds than others. I have a brighter mind than others and you think I'm just some kid. Are you kidding me? I'm not "mature" enough to be in Wikipedia because of my age? Really? I'm trying to make changes. And because of you, you make me worry that I can't do it. But I know very well that I can do it. I gave you apology cookies and other types of stuff and you can't appreciate it. You want to be the type of person that wants people like you. We all aren't the same, you know. We can't do this or do that. But we can do something better. So please, forget about my age, don't assume my maturity and just make me go back to Wikipedia to make things change. I want to give articles more information. I keep screwing up because of you. People don't want me in Wikipedia because I mess things up. I shouldn't do this or do that. All because I worry about it. And it is all your fault. Tallahassle (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not judging you solely based on your age, but I am concerned about the quality of your contributions to Wikipedia. (We've had grown adults get blocked for being immature, and we've also had kids become administrators, so it's never solely based on age, but more your overall conduct.) We understand that editors can make mistakes, but a problem arises when lapses in judgment become so frequent that they actually create more work for others than benefit.

Scrolling through your contributions, I could not find a single edit that was more than marginally beneficial to Wikipedia. It consists entirely of memes on your user page, memes on your sandbox, unnecessary links, the "located" stuff, capriciously sending barnstars, subtle adjustments to the way articles are worded that don't really add anything new, and apologies. You haven't created any new content or helped with any maintenance work. You have not demonstrated anything that shows that you will make useful contributions to Wikipedia if you are unblocked. You haven't explained what you plan to do if you are unblocked beyond mere promises to do better.

We do have a "standard offer" to users who find themselves indefinitely blocked. The standard offer reflects the fact that we are willing to give users second chances, but not always immediately. I hope you take the standard offer here. Mz7 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mad at me for all the things I have done for the past few weeks? Because I am very sorry. I am a very apologetic person, by the way. And I am starting to think that you hate me. But do you? Tallahassle (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad, and I do not hate you. However, I don't think you are ready to constructively edit Wikipedia at this time. I hope to see your name again sometime in the future as a productive Wikipedia editor. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]