User talk:Sayerslle

Edit warring at Ghouta chemical attack

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is here at WP:AN3 (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry investigation

Sayerslle, I hope this isn't you, but nevertheless the IP revert of Erlbaeko's change immediately after your four month block looks very, very suspicious. I've opened an investigation here, where you can defend yourself. I'm sorry about this, especially if I'm wrong. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I m blocked from editing wp - if I were not blockd I would take out RT as a ref anywhere on the article - - liz wahl talks abuot the cultish extreme-ist fringe views promoted there -nature of RT here -[1] - I thnk a lot of wp is being taken over by that pov - its getting more and more worthless wp, to read , let alone edit Sayerslle (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle, I am sorry if I am wrong, but I have opened a new sockpuppet investigation here. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian 19th motorized Ukrainian trip

Block timer reset

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sayerslle. Multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Any contributions made while evading blocks or bans can be reverted or deleted without discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your long-term history of disruption of many kinds, you have been blocked indefinitely. The "last straw" was your recent block-evasion. However, since you say you are retired, it won't make any difference, will it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I think this comment by Bbb23 clarifies that your only legitimate option is Wikipedia:Standard offer. If you select this option, pleased do not contact me, but one of administrators. I am sure you realized by now that coming to the project as you did last time was extremely counterproductive for everyone involved, including you. Whatever you do, do not waste time and nerves of other people, please. Remember times when you came here to improve content. Do right thing. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Madame de Pompadour (painting)

Hello, Sayerslle. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Madame de Pompadour".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 09:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Oppression and Liberty

Hello, Sayerslle. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Oppression and Liberty".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Limagrad

Hello, Sayerslle. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Limagrad".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Junichi Nakahara

Hello, Sayerslle. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Junichi Nakahara".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 09:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

This user has regularly engaged in block evasion, including in February, 2019 as Dan the Plumber. --Yamla (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

could an administrator look at actual edits , I seem to suffer from other editors 'projecting' their opinions onto me. I am a 'POV pusher' - yet I use RS , and did before as Sayerslle. I stand by my edits as Sayerslle and Dan the Plumber as an editor that got targeted by those who are indeed POV pushers. They even accused another editor of being a possible 'proxy' of mine. I have never , would never , ask another editor to make an edit for me. To me this is all projection. Could an administrator not look at my edits, at the content, I leave as an editor, and see beyond the battling on talk pages with POV warriors. If you can't look at the content I leave behind, and see only the goading of enemies as being insurmountable then , so be it. Wikipedia should look out though that it is indulging game players , and punishing, sincere, honest, and clumsy editors like me , who 'hide in plain sight' as a 'sock puppet', ( and replying to Yamla above, Sayerslle and Dan the Plumber are the sum of it, not two of many others), and really all this language , prevents one seeing that behind our usernames, are just people. I am a sincere, honest person. If I am given a last chance I would carry on as Dan the Plumber and never try under any other editor name to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for considering this request

Decline reason:

I get the "I'm older, more mature" thing, and I'm happy to accept that's the case and that the original problematic behaviour is in the past and unlikely to be repeated. But with maturity comes responsibility, and considering you've been socking less than two weeks ago, I'm not quite seeing that responsibility. I suggest WP:SO. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (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.

Note that you are blocked for violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE but have not addressed this in your unblock request (except to acknowledge that you are indeed guilty of using another account, while this one was blocked). You need to address your long-term violations in your unblock request, to have a chance to be unblocked. As I declined this unblock request over on your sockpuppet account, I will not review this almost-identical request. --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla - is there any timetable for when this request gets looked at. I just want to know - will I be allowed to edit with a user name ever again, or not? Sayerslle (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no timetable. The responsibility is on you to craft an unblock request that is sufficiently convincing. We normally take down requests if they fail to convince anyone after two weeks. You are free to rewrite your unblock request now. Note we are all volunteers here, there's no guaranteed response. You may have better luck waiting six months without edits, then applying under WP:SO. Such requests are more likely to be successful given your chronic violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. I'm not saying you have no chance here, you do honestly have a chance of unblocking in advance of the six month window. --Yamla (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

o.k. Thanks for the advice. I'll try in the autumn then and see how it goes. Sayerslle (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what I can do except saying that I edited as Sayerslle and as Dan the Plumber. 'You can't unring a bell' as Tom Waits said on one of the great soundtracks, One From the Heart. I'm older, more mature, I regret some of the edits I made as Sayerslle on talk pages, ( not on pages proper), I edited as Dan the Plumber because I missed editing. If unblocked on a 6 month trial at first, I would use all the maturity and knowledge I have gained to edit absolutely scrupulously on all talk pages and pages proper. There are several editors whose very username I dread seeing as I absolutely know the kind of edits they will make and what POV they will be pushing. But they are better than me obviously at pretending to be npov. Though some of them have ended up banned also. I have no time for pretence. I have a POV - but I never seek to push fringe sources, I only look to RS and edit with concern for wikipedia. If given a last chance I can only sincerely say that I would do my absolute best to improve the encyclopedia, walk away from provocation, and seek the best for the encyclopaedia. I don't want to waste anyones time here. I would use RS to improve the encyclopedia and not edit war. Thats all I can say. Sayerslle (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Somebody Else: Arthur Rimbaud in Africa 1880-91

Hello, Sayerslle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Somebody Else: Arthur Rimbaud in Africa 1880-91".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Sayerslle/Sandbox

User:Sayerslle/Sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sayerslle/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sayerslle/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 20:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]