You have been blocked due to your continued disruptive editing, which at this point seems to be deliberate. You are ignoring everything everyone is saying to you, continuing edit wars, don't know how to use the definite article and continue with edits against the MOS and disruptive short description edits. I'm not sure if you don't understand what is being said to you, or if you're deliberately ignoring what is being said to you, but at this point it doesn't matter as you're wasting the time of other editors. If you continue this when you return from your block, the next block will be indefinite. And you still have to fix your signature.

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

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 02:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last time this user was blocked, the first thing they did was place a notice at the top of this talk page stating the length of their block. So they obviously understand how to use talk pages, but refuse to engage on it… pretty egregious case of refusing to communicate. Danners430 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed that too. Adding to this, this has been a billionth time that someone has explained to this User about the problems regarding his signature. Instead of fixing it, he re-configures it using the same yellow color. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that they are very well aware of what's going judging from this edit done on the top of their talk page stating that they're currently blocked. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TG-article I can’t state for certain, but I’m willing to guess that this will likely be your last chance. Communication is required - it’s not optional. You’re obviously ignoring discussions instead of engaging with them, and I’m willing to bet that will count against you when administrators review your block. You’re invited to join the discussion and respond. Danners430 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They know how to use talk pages, but don't. I indicated above that the next block will be indefinite if they continue their current editing pattern. The fact that it could be interpreted that they're taking the block as a badge of honour instead of trying to correct their behaviour and collaborate with the community is tempting me to change the block to indefinite now. Indefinite does not necessarily mean permanent, but I think the lack of respect for the community and general behaviour at this point is leaning towards requiring responses and assurances to the community and acknowledgement of their actions in order to re-obtain editing rights. There is no evidence they're interested in change, and I think we'll be back here in a week. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn’t the venue, but I’d support this course of action - at least until they show willingness to engage. Danners430 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to do this here and whether or not this is the right venue to discuss this but would you mind looking over at the account UDEXTG (talk · contribs)? The nature of their edits suspiciously resemble each other with the account appearing to be an alt-account now used to evade this block. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are permitted, and I think it's quite clearly a WP:DUCK sock. I'm blocking both accounts indefinitely. If you see any more, feel free to reach out to me. I have a strong feeling this isn't the first account of this user either. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still quite surprised that this User still hasn't replied to any one of us nor to other editors in other discussions before it being archived. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have been indefinitely blocked. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the world of user talk pages! You wouldn't have been blocked if you had engaged from the very beginning......... Danners430 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually socking with User:UDEXTG? Because I can't quite believe that instead of discussing with us, you chose to run away and continue your disruptive edits with a sock account. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:55, 25 January 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I created this account to edit Wikipedia articles, most of which were related to aviation, including ones about airlines, aviation incidents and accidents, etc. Most of which have been reverted because Wikipedians, such as Aviationwikiflight (talk · contribs), Ivebeenhacked (talk · contribs), Danners430 (talk · contribs) and much more users, say that the edits do not appear to be constructive. There was also edit warring, disruptive editing, and a violation of the three-revert rule caused by me.

These things lead to me being blocked three times, with this one being indefinite, with the block admin saying the following,

"You have been blocked due to your continued disruptive editing, which at this point seems to be deliberate. You are ignoring everything everyone is saying to you, continuing edit wars, don't know how to use the definite article and continue with edits against the MOS and disruptive short description edits. I'm not sure if you don't understand what is being said to you, or if you're deliberately ignoring what is being said to you, but at this point it doesn't matter as you're wasting the time of other editors. If you continue this when you return from your block, the next block will be indefinite. And you still have to fix your signature.". (previously one week, now indefinite because Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs) changed the block settings from one week to indefinite)

I regret the disruptive editing which lead to me being blocked.

I also updated my signature, since you guys don't like the previous ones. There were multiple discussions about the signature, which have now been archived by ClueBot III (talk · contribs) at the January 2025 archive of my talk page.

• The first discussion relating to my signature was by Rosbif73 (talk · contribs),

"I noticed you have customised your signature. Unfortunately the light yellow text is very hard to read against a white background. If you really want to use a non-standard colour, might I suggest you choose something with better contrast, per WP:SIGAPP. Thanks!".

• The second discussion was by Consarn (talk · contribs),

"it's unlikely that more than 3 people will notice in the long run

but to quote wp:sigapp

"making your signature's text bigger is totes unbodacious, don't do it brah. making text smaller is fine though""

• The third discussion was by Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs), at the last two sentences,

"Finally, you have to change your signature. It's been raised several times and your current signature if against WP:SIGAPP which is a policy that has to be followed."

Because of these now archived discussions, I read the policy of signatures, which said the following,

"Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors.

• Avoid markup such as <big> and <span style="font-size: 200%;">^{(or more)} tags (which enlarge text); this is likely to disrupt the way that surrounding text displays.
• Do not add line breaks (<br />), which can also negatively affect nearby text display. The use of non-breaking spaces or <span class="nowrap"> to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.
• Be sparing with subscript and superscript. In some cases, this type of script can also affect the way that surrounding text is displayed.
• Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read.
• As some users have vision problems, be conscious of color and contrast issues. If you use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities.^{[Note 1]}
• Do not include horizontal rules (---- or <hr />).
• Do not include <div>...</div>s because those cause the surrounding text to make a new line.

For guidance on how to use color and other effects to customize the appearance of your signature, see this tutorial."

References

1. ^ The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines specify a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 for text, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Color requires 7:1 "where feasible". To use named CSS colors on a white background, refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/CSS colors for text on white for recommended colors. For other usage, use this Contrast ratio calculator to help determine if the colors will be visible to everyone. Signatures do not always appear on white backgrounds. Other colors for calculations range from the Monobook skin's very pale blue ( #F8FCFF ) to the closed discussion Hidden archive tan ( #F2DFCE ) title bar. Other tools for checking contrast are described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Color.

ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think your best chance of being unblocked is to take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time with no more logged out editing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2025 (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.

ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that your editing was disruptive. What about the other account UDEXTG? Canterbury Tail talk 23:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The socking is  Confirmed, for what it's worth.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any other accounts? Canterbury Tail talk 23:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None that I saw. But there were logged-out shenanigans as well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still concerned about the lack of communication from this user… I can’t influence anything as I’m not an admin, but @TG-article: will you engage in talk pages and address concerns other editors raise on your talk page instead of ignoring them? Danners430 (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed a disscusion which proposed by this user, and I would like to say the edit is disruptive. I saw the result suddenly, because I have been indefinite blocked on zh-wiki last year then I have been unblocked. Please learn from a lesson.--Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I nominated Singapore Airlines Flight 321 for deletion was because the cause of the accident, specifically severe turbulence, is a run-of-the-mill cause for aviation incidents and accidents. – ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 19:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have no idea why i'm getting notifs about this outside of that presumably coincidental mention (maybe i subscribed by accident?), but here's what i gathered

ultimately, that afd was closed as keep because, among other things, this "run-of-the-mill" incident got a lot of reliable coverage to deem it notable, the "run-of-the-mill" nature of the incident was disputed in the discussion, the incident got a lot of reliable coverage to deem it notable, and the incident got a lot of reliable coverage to to deem it notable. haters will say i listed the same reason thrice

regardless of how common something is or isn't, if it's notable enough to have an article about it, it's notable consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consarn (talk · contribs), you were the one of those who made a discussion about my signature... – ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 19:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, which is why that notification was sent before, and why i got a mention notification now. those are standard fare, but i probably just subscribed to this discussion after checking the mention and didn't notice consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you made wasn't the only discussion about the signature, because there were more discussion on the topic being my signature, which have now been archived at User_talk:TG-article/Archives/2025/January. – TG-ARTICLE^{(TALK ▪ CONTRIBUTIONS)} 19:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TG-article: Coming back the topic of your block, you still haven’t addressed concerns on whether or not you will be able to communicate with other editors instead of ignoring the messages. Additionally, it would also be nice if you could address the use of your alt-account UDEXTG (talk · contribs). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"haters will say i listed the same reason thrice" – TG-ARTICLE^{(TALK ▪ CONTRIBUTIONS)} 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shwangtianyuan: You misspelled "discussion". – ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 19:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My unblock request has been declined. – TG-ARTICLE^{(TALK ▪ CONTRIBUTIONS)} 23:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are not actually interested in a proper unblock discussion, and the main edits you're making to your talk page are nice little templates to tell people you're blocked. This doesn't fill anyone with confidence. I think talk page removal may be required here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clearly have no interest in making a proper unblock request, and are only interested in frittering away at tweaking pointless templates and messages on your talk page, I've removed your talk page access. Everything's over everyone else, you can return to your regularly scheduled editing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]