User talk:Signora Libre
Signora Libre, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Signora Libre! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC) |
Battlefield mentality
[edit]Please edit with your primary account. Creating a purpose account (particularly one with an inflammatory name) to carry on a dispute is not what we do here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have no dispute with anybody. I made constructive (and non-disruptive) edits to uphold core Wikipedia policies. I have no primary account on Wikipedia. The user name was selected as meaning "liberated married woman".
Since you mentioned is not what we do here, I request you to dispassionately examine your own conflicts of interest with the indeffed blocked user User:Singora specifically in the context of either a doctor-patient relationship or past offwiki counselling to psychiatrically disturbed editors who reach out to you.Signora Libre (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Unblock request
[edit]
Signora Libre (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of the blocking arbitrator. I have no primary account on Wikipedia, this is my only account. As a news professional, I am, however, a very long-term reader of Wikipedia including the discussion pages and notice boards and so am quite familiar with your policies. I have also corrected quite a few articles without having an account. It was thus quite a spontaneous decision for me to open an account at Wikipedia and while deciding the user name "Signora Libre" (free married lady) the name "Singora" (a nonsense word) was being auto-suggested to me by Wikipedia's software and I came across the article Seri Rambai in consequence of Wikipedia's user name suggestion. Being a news professional I immediately noticed that the article could be copy edited to improve it. Accordingly, I "Boldly" and in good faith ventured to make about 7 edits, spread over some time, to the article and clearly explained my editing rationale in the text boxes which Wikipedia helpfully provided me. IMHO the article was significantly improved after I edited it. I was thus awfully surprised to find myself blocked and accused of having a "battle field mentality" and "disruptive editing", both terms whose everyday meaning I understand well enough. If I have done something wrong, as a noob I shall learn about my mistake(s) so that I don't repeat them after I am unblocked. In any event I apologise in advance to whoever I have offended and so request for an unblock, promising never to make such mistakes in future. I have read the 'Guide to appealing blocks' and tried my best to comply with its requirements. Most specifically I have absolutely no intention to damage or disrupt Wikipedia. Signora Libre (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is no auto-suggestion feature for usernames, certainly not one that suggests nonsense words that are already in use as user names. You seem well aware not just of Wikipedia's policies but also of obscure Wikipedia history and, shall we say, opposition research. I see no reason to believe you are a new editor unrelated to User:Singora. Huon (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
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.