User talk:Thayve Sintar

Psst, I'm right here!

Changing the titles of sources and marking edit as WP:Minor

Per this, this and this, do not change the title of sources and do not mark edits as WP:Minor unless they are minor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, sorry, Flyer22 Reborn. For some reason I thought removing redundancy was minor enough. Thanks for leaving my other edits intact though. Thayve Sintar (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listening. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, Flyer22 Reborn, but obeying. And you're welcome. No point in trying to get around the Wiki's rules, of course, right? Thanks for making me aware of those two, and thanks for thanking me. :-) Thayve Sintar (talk) 05:05, 19 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand what I did so wrong to deserve being blocked without so much as even a peep of a warning that anything I was doing could earn me a block. As I read through the unblock request guide, I noticed these steps, so let me go through each one:

"The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

- This is true, as it never was in the first place. Your blocking policy explicitly states that blocking is not to be used as a punishment, but to prevent disruption. Nobody has told me that anything I've ever done here was disruptive, but I did get a gentle caution not to correct errors out of reference titles and not to mark edits that maybe be considered "major" as minor (that seems somewhat subjective; I guess I just won't use that feature at all, then), which of course I agreed to.

"The block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead."

- 2 out of 3. I don't exactly understand what I was blocked for, but I suppose a guess is better than nothing. But this is extreme overkill, as I will explain: The only things I've done wrong are those that I was told about right above this request: making the mistake of correcting reference titles (which I now know is taboo for some reason), and marking "major" edits as minor. Although I thought I was following that policy—but apparently not closely enough, as we can see here!

- So I must've accidentally edited some reference titles again without slowing down to be cautious enough to notice whether or not what I was editing was indeed reference titles. But given the opportunity, I will be more careful. :- I can't remember any new times that I've marked what might be so-called "major" edits as minor, but like I said above, I guess I just won't mark any of them anymore, because apparently I'm not that good at keeping the line of demarcation in the right place.

- I have never gotten into any editing wars.

- Whenever there was more than a small dispute that could be handled in the edit summaries, I started a discussion on the article's talk page and invited people to participate.

- I have never been the least uncivil.

- And obviously I have never vandalized anything here on the Wikipedia. If anything, exactly the opposite, of course: I revert vandalism as soon as I see and recognize it! So obviously I'm not out there causing damage to the project that needs to be stopped in an emergency by suddenly blocking me without warning!

"Tell us why you are here."

- I was, and always would've been here to correct errors in any article whenever I see them, and to do my best to rewrite sections that were written unclearly. I don't know if I'll ever think of a subject to write a whole article about, but that's on my bucket list, I suppose. So in conclusion, I hope you can see from this and evidence in my edit history, including discussions, that I'm actually a peacefully contributing member of your team, and blocking me just makes you lose someone who could've been a valuable asset to the community and the project, so unblocking me would be the right thing to do. I promise to be more watchful so that I don't edit the wrong things in the wrong ways, but only edit the right things in the right ways. Thayve Sintar (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are confirmed as the long-term block-evading vandal, Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk · contribs). You haven't discussed this in your unblock request, so there are no grounds here to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 13:49, 18 November 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.

Oh, Yamla? How would that happen, exactly, and how would I discuss something that I have no idea about or how anyone could arrive at an outlandish claim like that? Oh, vandal? Doesn't my edit history speak for itself? Now you think my corrections of reference titles constitute vandalism? I said I would be a lot more careful to spot those now, didn't I?

Besides, I just saw this bit of vandalism at leased line: [1], and could have reverted it if I wasn't blocked. I had already been reverting vandalism like that, not causing it, before you blocked me. Wouldn't watchfulness like that, the opposite of vandalism, plus everything else I've described about my constructivism, warrant unblocking me? Thayve Sintar (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk · contribs), back on the site. What's the policy for admins replying after they have declined a block? Thayve Sintar (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access of banned editor revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably unnecessary to say it, but this editor emailed me about their block, claiming that there was "no evidence" for the blocking (there was) and wondering why I didn't discuss things first. Noting this here because by default I do not answer to emails by email. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did that to me, too. I have revoked email access. --Yamla (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19829 was submitted on Nov 22, 2017 08:52:17. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19838 was submitted on Nov 23, 2017 04:47:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]