User talk:Randomuser2412

Welcome!

Hello, Randomuser2412, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Randomuser2412/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 24.211.70.219 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Randomuser2412/sandbox

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User:Randomuser2412/sandbox, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Korçë Crisis (1916-1920)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Korçë Crisis (1916-1920). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Autonomous Province of Korçë. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Autonomous Province of Korçë. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gramos Incident

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Gramos Incident requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramos Incident. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no this is not my first page, i have helped to make a lot of pages on wikipedia such as Korçë Crisis (1916–1920) wich all approved and other pages translated in other language, this page i created was deleted before because it had low sources but i added more and this page covers also untold history of both albania and greece during the 1950's Randomuser2412 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gramos Incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gramos Incident 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/Gramos Incident (2nd 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.

StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Piccco (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Kara Mahmud Pasha 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. This warning is concerning the page Second Scutari-Ottoman War GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Albanian-Prilep War. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Albanian-Prilep War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albanian-Prilep War 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/Albanian-Prilep War 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.

StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Ali Pasha's Invasion of Butrint

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ali Pasha's Invasion of Butrint, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, First combat operations of FASH.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, First combat operations of FASH.. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – First combat operations of FASH. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at First combat operations of FASH. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ASUKITE 16:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on this - the article was a recreation of First combat operations of FASH, although it was improved. I'm following guidance over at WP:NPR to ensure the history of the original page is maintained. If you want, you're welcome to recreate this at that page by overwriting the redirect, but keep in mind others may disagree with the content as it is similar to the content that was repeatedly blanked in the past. Barring that, you are also welcome to start a draft and seek a review at WP:AFC before publishing. If the page is indeed deleted, the content will be lost without a special request to access it, so I recommend you save a copy if you intend to go with either of those solutions. Thank you. ASUKITE 16:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:NormalguyfromUK per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randomuser2412 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if you can see the message i sended with the unblock template, but i'm just gonna write it again:

Dear Administrators,

I sincerely apologize for my actions related to the sockpuppeting investigation. I now fully understand that using multiple accounts in an improper manner, such as to evade scrutiny or to gain an unfair advantage, is a violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. This was not my intention, and I deeply regret the choices I made.

I have been an active and committed contributor to Wikipedia for the past 12 months, and it has been a rewarding experience to help improve the platform’s content. I appreciate the values Wikipedia upholds, especially in maintaining a fair and transparent editing process. Unfortunately, my actions undermined these principles, and for that, I take full responsibility.

Going forward, I am committed to editing Wikipedia in a manner consistent with its policies. I will ensure that I only use one account and follow all community guidelines to contribute constructively. I am willing to accept any restrictions or guidance the community deems necessary to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

I hope you will consider giving me another chance to prove that I can be a positive and trustworthy member of the community.

Thank you for considering my request. Randomuser2412 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Ok we are at this point again....Dear wikipedia admins, it's almost been 4 months since this started (tomorrow it's gonna hit 4 months) anyway, i'm writing this to appeal and ask for you to unblock me, i should have probably told that i had an alt account, but i never used it really plus i made one mistake which i deeply regret (the editing war on epirus page), but i don't think it was really necessary to delete my pages such as Austro-Hungarian invasion of Albania or any other, but hey thanks for letting one stay up i'm glad about it. Anyway back to the point , as i said i'm appealing to ask you to ublock me and i say this sincerely that i deeply regret my mistake and what i did, overall i was a newbie back in those months but i have watched a lot of things about wikipedia i’ve read the tutorials and guidelines so i’m kindly asking for you to unblock me or at least give me a time for how long i gotta wait (like idk 2/3/9 months as example)

so yeah…thanks for reading this and i hope you’ll reply fast to me

kindly from Randomuser2412 ~~~~}} Randomuser2412 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unblock requests seem to minimize the user's disruption and don't address the full picture. In a previous comment, Randomuser2412 claimed that they have "friends" in wikipedia, giving as an example (diff) User:FalangistoCastriota (contribs), saying that administrators "got confused" because of it. Falangisto.castriota is a confirmed sock of User:Henrikurti (contribs) (SPI result), along with a few others accounts (the latest being from 30 October). Both were editwarring at the article of Epirus, overall from 28 August to 9 September 2024, at some point restoring each other's edits multiple times a day (even with a two minute difference interaction). If not a case of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, then this is a clear case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, between two real-life "friends", per their comments. Interestingly, there are also indications that both editors utilized AI technology for their activities in wikipedia. Randomuser's first unblock request was composed with AI, as it was called out by User:HouseBlaster (diff), which is also obvious when comparing the two requests. Henrikurti's wikipedia activity was also aided by AI, as it was pointed out in an academic paper (!), which was brought up by User:Carrite (talkpage). I wouldn't be surprized if many of the articles that both users were creating simultaneously in a very short period of time (between August-September 2024: Randomuser, Henrikurti) were indeed all AI generated. On October 29, despite being blocked and before the 2nd request, Randomuser appears to be already testing an infobox of a non-existent wikipedia article Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian invasion of Roman Macedonia (diff), later removed (diff). Piccco (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

number one, idk any of those people irl they are all online friends, number 2 i may have used Artificial intelligence to expand some of my pages and make them a bit more detailed and i take full responsability of that since i was just a beginner and i should have probably trained more on writing pages, number 3 about the Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian invasion of Roman Macedonia stuff, a friend of mine (always online) needed it to make one of those What if stuff edit if you know what i mean, Now i probably think i should have not done that and as i said i take full responsability of every mistake i made here on Wikipedia, i should have probably read the guidline better and tried harder but i was probably more focused on making history pages since i'm a great history nerd and as i said i still apologize for breaking any guidelines, i hope we can resolve this without any other issue Randomuser2412 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:NormalguyfromUK per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway I do not have multiple accounts. I have this one and a second account that I never even used. Maybe you got confused with some of my friends because I have friends who make Wikipedia article like falangisto.castriota he is a friend of mine, but I do not have multiple account. I swear I just have This one and another one I don’t really have other accounts and if I did have others, I will just look out of this one and make pages with the other one, which I didn’t really make Randomuser2412 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2024 (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).

Randomuser2412 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to address my block regarding sockpuppeting. I understand the seriousness of this accusation, and I want to clarify the situation. I do not have multiple active accounts. I only have one other account, which I created but never really used. It was not my intention to violate any rules, and I apologize if this has caused any misunderstanding.

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for 12 months and always aimed to improve the platform’s content in good faith. I now realize that having an unused second account without declaring it may have raised concerns, but I assure you that I never used it to edit or evade any policies.

I take full responsibility for any confusion and am committed to editing in full compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Going forward, I will use only my main account and ensure full transparency.

Thank you for considering my appeal, and I hope to continue contributing positively to the community.

Decline reason:

We do not accept unblock requests written with the help of AI, such as ChatGPT. Please compose an unblock request in your own words. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (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.

OI @Izno Reply to my messages Randomuser2412 (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reply to my messages Randomuser2412 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey...come on respond to my messages, i get it that punishing me was good but you didn't need to delete my pages, they were literallly useful asf, could you unblock me now? i had given my statemand and apologised multiple times Randomuser2412 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randomuser2412 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno oi reply Randomuser2412 (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making duplicate requests on UTRS; doing so reduces the likelihood of you being unblocked. There is no deadline for someone to review this request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piccco sorry for disturbing but could you respond? Randomuser2412 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2024 (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).

Randomuser2412 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hello wikipedia admin, this is like my 10th time asking to be unbanned lmao 😭🙏🏻, anywy i will adress everything 1) why did i join wikipedia? well i joined wikipedia because i'm a huge history nerd and other stuff also because wikipedia didn't have enough article (especially about my country) or others, so with the sources i found both in books and online i wanted to help and expand it 2) why did i use ai to write things? well simply...i was dumb, yes i was dumb i though using ai could have elped everything and stuff, wich i admit is stupid to think about and i take all the fault for my stupid idea and stuff... 3) do i have an alt? yes i do but i never usually used it, and i didn't use it for vandalism and other stuff because that isn't a thing i would even do but i should have probably warned or written that i have an alt account 4) am i trutly sorry for all i did? yes, yes i am, i am so so sorry for everything i did because i was immature and dumb, i thought doing those thing was easy and escaping wikipedia guidlines was easy too, wich i understand now it's a dumb thing to think about, and like i said i take full responsability for every act that you consider vandalism and i didn't seriously mean it hopefully we will come to an agreement bye by Randomuser2412 Randomuser2412 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is Confirmed to C3rciz.Topulli (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and is a rather obvious NormalguyfromUK sock anyway. Unblock declined; talk page access revoked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 19 December 2024 (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.

December 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]