User talk:Adamdaley

Archives (Index)

2016/July 2016/August 2016/September 2016/November 2016/December 2017/February 2017/April 2017/June 2017/September 2017/December 2018/March 2018/July 2018/August 2018/September 2018/October 2018/November 2018/December 2019/March 2019/April 2019/June 2019/August 2019/September 2019/October 2019/November 2020/January 2020/February 2020/June 2020/August 2020/September 2020/November 2020/December 2021/February 2021/April 2021/June 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/March 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/May 2023/September 2023/December

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

July 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ljleppan (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been consistently editing against consensus, and you have failed to adjust your behavior despite concerns expressed by many editors. Cullen328 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

When did i need concensus to add the right attributes? Adamdaley (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• towards the end I was asking if it would be OK to continue editing on the basis of adding the right attributes. I wanted clarification. Didn't give me a chance to change. Since when did Wikipedia need to approve my attitude? Should this be a requirement at signup?Adamdaley (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Adamdaley, you should use your talk page for one thing right now: to try to actually sincerely learn how you can become productive, and once you understand that, to request unblock. You may not use it to continue to argue with other editors about why you still think you're right. That will get your talk page access revoked. If you keep asking rhetorical questions designed to illustrate why you're right, that's going to happen very soon. valereee (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

i was trying to get clarification on if I could still edit on the condition I added the right attributes. I never said I was right or wrong. Does anyone know how long it would take to get concensus for 82,000 articles? I'm still waiting on 3 articles from about 3 months ago. I asked for whoever to ping me so I had the right attributes before adding.

Decline reason:

I started to post the boilerplate unblock decline that your request was not WP:GAB compliant. However, I believe that you deserve a more specific answer. Please read your block notice. Editing against consensus is disruptive; failure to acknowledge the disruption and take on board constructive, good faith guidance on how to change your behavior demonstrated that a block was necessary to stop the disruption. You are not expected to obtain consensus for 82,000 articles. You are expected to edit within consensus. The consensus is that cosmetic changes that do not benefit our readers and causes extra work for our volunteers is disruptive. You can attempt to change that consensus after your unblock but that attempt in and of itself may become disruptive. It's simply a non-starter. I can tell by your past work that you have the capacity for positive contribution. You will simply have to accept that when multiple editors convey that you need to address a concern it becomes a requirement and not an option. Tiderolls 16:30, 19 July 2022 (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.

I suggest you read WP:GAB, which explains what an unblock request should include and what it shouldn't include. The link was in the block notice, but you may not have noticed it. valereee (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Adamdaley, I hope you don't mind a blunt comment from me. I've read over that ANI discussion, and I've read some of the lengthy discussions in your talk page history. I can come to only one conclusion - you must stop making your cosmetic-only formatting changes. The community consensus is strongly against making cosmetic-only changes that do not affect the appearance of a page, as numerous people have tried to explain, and you will not be left alone to just carry on. And no, you should not seek consensus for every one of 82,000 pages you wish to make cosmetic-only changes on, you should stop doing it entirely. If making these cosmetic code formatting changes is the only thing you wish to do here, then your time at Wikipedia will surely soon end. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but someone needs to tell it to you straight. And that's the way I read it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, for WP-editors, being left alone is (in the long run) not part of the deal. Communication is sometimes necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I edit conflicted with the editors above posting my decline. As you can see, I agree that your request was not WP:GAB compliant. Please do not use the unblock template to ask questions. Simply start another section. Tiderolls 16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Several times I've tried to write a reply here. I wanted to get clarification on if I was to add the right attributes to the Projects I could continue. However, Cullen328, was too quick to jump the gun and wasn't allowing me to get that information. I've been here for almost 16 years, now I've forgotten what I was gonna say. Basically, I was gonna change my way if I could have gotten clarification. I've explained why I don't add content to articles, hence the Rudolf Abel article is the only article I'm proud of. I learnt to let it go after 2 weeks for people to edit it. Adamdaley (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've tried other wiki stuff like wikicommons. That was extremely hard and confusing since I have aspergers. I enjoyed what I was doing patrolling the forgotten talkpages and if you asked me this a year ago if I was gonnabe banned, I wouldn't have believed you. I was happy patrolling talkpages and when discussions like this happen makes me feel terrible. Adamdaley (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter. You guys took away what made me happy. The unblocking process is too confusing for me so I guess I'll have to find something else to do. I'm not gonna fight this, I'm fighting to keep my family together. Adamdaley (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Right, I'll treat this as a sincere attempt at clarification in pursuit of understanding how you can become productive. Please define what you are calling the "right attributes" you added in this edit? valereee (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just like before, if it was a WP:MILHIST article for example if it was missing the biography, war period, navy, airforce country etc. I'd probably assess the WP:Biography / milhist. Or asses anything that is military. I also try to bring up to standard other WikiProjects. Assessment-wise. Adamdaley (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  What changes visible on the talk page did that edit make? valereee (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing on here. Cause it's not a military Article. If it was missing one or two of the following: Aviation, biography, maritime, war period, country, etc. Sometimes I might assess non military articles. I'd assess WP:Biography / MILHIST Adamdaley (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then the answer is no. You are not improving anything, and the edit is a net negative, so it's not something we would unblock you to allow to continue doing. valereee (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Can you provide an example of an edit you made that was a pure improvement without any of the formatting changes that do nothing to improve the assessment? valereee (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  You asked me what attributes I'd add to WP:MILHIST, if it was a biography, and the guy was in world war 2 and into the 1950s and was in the British navy. If only the biography, British ww2 was there and missed the I'd add the other attributes. Adamdaley (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  OK, so maybe too many questions at once. Let's start with this: So the Talk:Sir Richard Grenville, 1st Baronet edit you're agreeing was completely unnecessary and it something you could agree to never doing again? valereee (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  1. talkheader -- Simply took out the space between talk and header.

  2. British English -- Left alone.

  3. WikiProjectBannerShell -- Removed the spaces between WikiProject, Banner and Shell.

  4. Condensed the WP:Biography / MILHIST / Peerage to a single line (with the priorities being Mid)

  5. Condensed the WP:MILHIST / included the long version of B class criteria (instead of doing it shorthand, like what I was doing before today).

  6. I added the Early Modern criteria which time-period it falls into between 1500 and 1800 years.

  Each attribute of WP:Banners on that page is more defined. To me, it looks clean and no excessive wastage of symbols and/or spaces. They are all straight to the point, if viewing in edit mode of course. One that I haven't done yet is Sir William Johnson, 1st Baronet. Would condense the WP:Biography / MILHIST with assessment / other attributes with assessment. Cleanup any other garbage to make out what WikiProjects were there, see if all attributes of assessments are there. Adamdaley (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so I'm a little beyond my depth in reading the diff (anyone who understands this better, feel free to jump in and correct me). So you're saying that the Grenville edit changed nothing for anyone viewing the talk, but you believe the edit was helpful and your intent is to continue with these types of edits? valereee (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Let's take a look at the linked diff, it's a pretty good example:

  1. {{Talk header}} → {{talkheader}} -- Replaces valid template with alias/redirect; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
  2. {{WikiProject banner shell}} → {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} -- Replaces valid template with alias/redirect; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
  3. living=no → living=n; military-work-group=yes → military-work-group=y etc. -- Replaces valid parameter with alias; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
  4. Reordering named arguments of {{WikiProject Biography}} -- Order of named arguments has no effect on anything; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
  5. Removing linebreaks from {{WikiProject Biography}} -- unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
  6. b1=yes → b1 !-- Referencing and citations --> =y etc. -- It's fine to throw in comments if you are re-evaluating, but completely unnecessary for this diff. No visual/meaningful change, but the reader now has to check whether you changed any of the evaluations.
  7. British-task-force → British etc. -- Replaces valid parameter with alias; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
  8. Adding Early-Modern -- Technically unneeded (Already present through Three-Kingdoms-task-force, I assume) but OK since this is non-obvious.
  9. Removing priority=Mid from {{WikiProject Military history}} -- Presumably a mistake hidden by the massive changeset. If not, summary should explain why it was removed.
  10. Adding Biography=y to {{WikiProject Military history}} -- Good
  11. Fiddling with whitespace and line breaks in {{WikiProject Military history}} -- Unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change

  This changeset should have been as simple as #8 and #10. As for the edit summary, Expanded WP:Biography / MILHIST / Peerage; WP:MILHIST / Biography / British / Early Modern / Three Kingdoms doesn't really tell me anything. It sounds like Peerage was "expanded", but diff shows that actually nothing of value was done to it. Same applies to most of the rest of the summary. A self-explanatory edit summary (for a minimal diff containing only #8 and #10 above) would be something like Add Biography and Early-Modern to MILHIST banner. If I then see #9 in that diff with that edit summary, it's pretty clear that it was a mistake. Now I'm left wondering whether you intended to do that or not. Ljleppan (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, you win. Why I changed from short hand to the full length WP:MILHIST is to prove a point. All of you fell into what I expected you'd would fall into, regardless what is there someone would make a big deal over nothing or blowing up. I'm not gonna try and justify it any more. Regardless of what I do, someone is going to find fault in what I do. I've had no sleep for 24 hours and I feel you guys have lost an editor who was happy at editing and finding articles that was missing attributes from WikiProjects so they were added. Even if I did 1 edit per hour, it would still be questioned. I'll ask, you guys want me to leave so you guys can go back to doing constructive edits and improving articles? That's fine? Are you happy for me not to be here? Adamdaley (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nick-D tell WP:MILHIST people I had a great time in the years of editing. Gonna try and try and find something else to do. I was prepared to try and change my ways, unfortunately people wanna pick too much with how things are. I'm happy I was able to do the Rudolf Abel article. Adamdaley (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing visually changed for the viewer. Once in edit mode, the only real change is the Early Modern for time period. I was in trouble with the shorthand, may as well go back to the long version of b class criteria. I went back to the long version, why not make sure I'm banned for following the WikiProject Military history Template as shown on their page. Adamdaley (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Correction... the early modern attribute that I added would have been visible to the viewer. Adamdaley (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've just compared the rendering of both revisions, and the one difference I can see is the addition of a new "Associated task forces (general topics)" section containing "Military biography task force". If there are any others, I've missed them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  (The "Early Modern warfare task force" was already there previously) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  No it wasn't. The three kingdoms was the only time period. I added the Early Modern since the article fell between 1500 and 1800. Adamdaley (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is the version immediately before your edit, and I can see it was there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see the code "Early-Modern=y" in the before version, mind, so might there be something else that included it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm going to bed it's now 4:28 am. I admit some of my edits maybe questionable but 99% are added. I know this article on Early Modern is correct, I'm tired not totally insane to see what my edit was. It was me that did that. Adamdaley (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I know you added the code "Early-Modern=y". But the result, the "Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)" one, was already showing on that page in the previous revision. I can see it clearly. I don't know which code invokes it, but some code prior to your addition appears to have done so. Anyway, getting some sleep seems like a good idea - g'night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  It turns out that I added the Biography and Early Modern to WP:MILHIST. The biography in that section has been missing from other articles. Adamdaley (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, that would explain it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think TPA should be revoked before the user digs that hole deep enough to reach an indefinite block. – ².O.^Boxing 22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

TPA? Adamdaley (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The ability to edit your talk page. Your current block is only one month. You're not doing yourself any favours by making admissions of disruption. – ².O.^Boxing 22:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Talk Page Access. Adam, you don't seem to want to take on board the feedback people are leaving here. Until you do, you are going to continue butt heads with others. There is still plenty of helpful stuff you can do here once your 1-month block expires, you just have to refrain from the talk page edits that visually don't make a difference. All the best, Zawed (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

So if I don't contribute to articles, what's left? As I said I was prepared to try and change. Adamdaley (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand what people are saying, would someone else go through 82,000+ articles to add missing attributes? No I don't think so because they'd find it boring, find it disruptive. I'm happy I caught those I have because their attributes on the talkpages are more exact. It's a fine skill in adding them since quite a few haven't been touched for 10, 11 years. I'm prepared to add those because I'm the only one who has an interest in finding things wrong on talkpages. Why can't I do that? I've found duplicate wikiprojects that no one has found till I came over that article. Duplicate attributes, yes I've made my own duplicates and I'm thankful someone found them quickly. Adamdaley (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Hello Adam, sorry to see to the situation you find yourself in. It seems there is a disconnect between the questions you have and the answers you have been given, and along with being blocked and now having your talk page access cut off, this must all be quite frustrating. You might not get an answer that makes all of this clear to you, but none the less, when your block expires, if you continue to make these same types of edits, you are all but guaranteed to be blocked again, a block that is likely to be indefinite. There are people here that don't want to see that happen, that believe you aren't trying to be malicious, and that is would be a shame to lose someone with your experience, who seems to genuinely want to contribute. So you may not get an answer that you find sufficient, you may have to accept that that's just how it is.

I saw you ask just above: "So if I don't contribute to articles, what's left?". Well... there's a lot left. This came up in a discussion here last year, and so I'm going to repost a comment of mine about that partuclar subject;

(repost)

Hello again Adam, I just wanted to say that trying to show where others may have done things wrong, will not help in any way here, it would really just be a waste of your time. Mathglot has made a pretty good case for leaving off with the talk page tinkering, as it provides no appreciable benefit and only serves as a timesink for all involved, including you as well as any editors that follow up on those edits and the editors debating them now. I think the best course of action here is to agree to discontinue those types of edits. That does not mean you need to leave to Wikipedia. This is a huuuge project, there is plenty to do. For example, you could work on articles; creating, expanding, copy-editing/ proofreading, tagging, seeking out sources, etc., etc. Or even contribute to various GA/FA efforts. Or, perhaps you could work more on the maintenance side; where you could patrol at WP:RC to help fight vandalism (WP:AIV: always a priority), or contribute to WP:AfD, (or WP:CfD, WP:FfD, WP:RfC, WP:RfD, WP:RM, and orher "WP:ABC/XYZ"-type discussions). Or select other areas of page maintenance, perhaps something specific and similar even to what you were doing before, but something that has been identified as a need by the community. Or, you could work in more specialized areas, like WP:SPI or WP:COI, or work on WP:DYKs. Or perhaps you could be a WP:MENTOR; you have 15 years and almost 80,000 edits worth of experience (and never been blocked), maybe you would find guiding new and struggling users to be rewarding. If not WP:ADOPTION, then perhaps you could help out at the WP:TEAHOUSE, or the Help Desk, WP:REFDESK or the Village Pump. Your experience could be of great benefit in these areas. Or, there is always the drama boards; giving advice and helping to mediate disputes at WP:ANI and WP:AN, amongst others. The point is there is an seemingly endlist list of possibilities. Take some time, read through the suggestions here (not just mine, but others, like the Task Center mentioned above, for example. Maybe give one, or a few of these ideas a try for while and see if there's a good fit for you somewhere. Or just take some off if you need it. But regardless of what you choose, WP wants you here. We could benefit from your experience and there are people here willing to help you find the right path for you. You just have to be willing to move on and move forward. Good luck to you. - wolf 03:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I realize this makes for a rather lengthy overall post, and so I have collapsed the repost part. But, with this time out from editing, I hope you do give it a read, and give some thought to other ways you can contribute, ways that won't land you back in this situation. There really are many, many things you can do here. And along with my suggestions, I'm sure others could come up with even more, or perhaps on your own you will find a niche that suits you, a way that you can help build and improve this great project of ours, that won't lead to further debates and blocks. Give it some thought. And again, good luck to you. - wolf 02:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

Since you are using your talk page to continue to argue that you have the right to edit disruptively against consensus, which is a waste of other people's time, I have revoked your talk page access. Please read Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System for your options going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #60973

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Future Editing...

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Boing! said Zebedee: @Valereee: @Cullen328: @Thewolfchild: @Nick-D: @Peacemaker67: @Ljleppan:

Some of you maybe aware that I was recently banned for one month between July 19 and August 19, 2022 for disruptive editing. My experience at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was overwhelming. Overwhelming because so many users who I've never seen before on Wikipedia, wanted their say or their "2 cents worth" in my case at WP:ANI. What made it a really bad experience for me, was because of these people, because I have Aspergers, mental illess - mainly OCD, Anxiety and Depression. Even have been experiencing family problems - one-year worth of problems - and facing potential homelessness. With those "labels", I interpret things differently to other people in society by both online and in reality.

The only person that has made any sense in this whole ban incident is thewolfchild by what they had said, they have earnt my respect as a fellow editor. Why do I patrol talkpages? Articles are pretty much regulated and watched by thousands of users depending on their interest in Wikipedia. I have found countless articles that needed some love and attention. Why? Because they too me, had countless invalid code and missing attributes in the WikiProject Project Banners, for example WikiProject Biography and Military history.

What other editors failed to see, is that the a percentage of my edits were some-what constructive. Trying my best to cleanup talkpages so they are able to load faster. Not all articles are able to be improved in "load time". Let's take Nguyễn Khánh; I removed 535 bytes and let's go by WikiProject by WikiProject.

Let's go line by line, WikiProject by WikiProject. There is no "talk header", I'd remove the space for "talkheader". While this is not a redirect as some editors like Ljleppan automatically assumes (I've pinged Ljleppan as a curtesy to let them know what I'm saying; and talking about them). Same thing with "WikiProjectBannerShell" removing those spaces can be used elsewhere in the WikiProjects and the WikiProject attributes. Whatever they maybe since every talkpage is different!

WikiProject Biography: The only attribute added was the "Politician Priority".

WikiProject Vietnam: Left "as is".

WikiProject Military history: I removed the "long" form with the "short" form. I added the following attributes: "Biography", "Southeast Asian" and "Cold War". Even the current template at WikiProject Military history would have been shorter than the current "long" form. Why isn't the Military importance listed here? It is better served in WikiProject Biography hence the: "|military-work-group=y|military-priority=mid"

WikiProject Politics: Left "as is". The "Importance" could have been assessed as "Low". Why "Low"? I'm not that familiar with the article in question, so I assessed it as "Low" importance. If it was meant to be a higher assessment, someone can edit it.

Four things Ljleppan, did bring up "4. Reordering named arguments of WikiProject Biography -- Order of named arguments has no effect on anything; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change". Let me make this clear, I follow the template. If you don't like that, then get consensus at the WP:Biography to change their WikiProject template. "7. British-task-force → British etc. -- Replaces valid parameter with alias; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change" as the current WP:MILHIST template, the short form of countries are acceptable instead of the longer-form such as "British-task-force". The "task force" has simply been dropped."5. Removing linebreaks from WikiProject Biography -- unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change"; who says it needs each attribute on a separate line? Basically compact it to achieve less wasting of the talkpage. "9. Removing priority=Mid from WikiProject Military history -- Presumably a mistake hidden by the massive changeset. If not, summary should explain why it was removed" in Biographies, the MILHIST importance is better suited in the WP:Biography banner. Other non-Biography-MILHIST articles the importance is invalid code and does appear during the visual banner of WP:MILHIST by users.

At this point, my aim would be to undue what I've done and I am hoping it will show to other editors that I am trying to make up for my past editing prior to the ban.

For those who are still reading to this point, I've had countless "thanks" from editors who've seen my changes. I am humble to those people. Then people named above, why not just come to me and ask why I do what I do. If that was done, then I wouldn't have felt so badly, overwhelmed, etc. As for the Biographies on WP:MILHIST, I'm going to try and change my edits that got me banned for a month, this time, I'll be following the WikiProject templates as to they appear on their respective WikiProject pages. If people still have problems with me following the WikiProject Banner templates as they are "text-wise", then I don't know what to say to you if you have a "problem" with another user following it that specific way. Adamdaley (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the community does not want you to make edits that do not change the appearance of the page that are instead "Trying my best to cleanup talkpages so they are able to load faster." The vast majority of talk pages load very rapidly and your changes have negligible impact on load time. This is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia for the benefit of our readers. Do not make functionally useless edits that that clog up other editor's watch lists. You were blocked (not banned) for one month, but now you are unblocked. Please do not return to the same or similar pattern of behavior because the next block will come much more swiftly and will last much longer. Instead, find something indisputably useful to do. Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Adamdaley. Don't think I've interacted with you before, nor did I participate in the ANI discussion. I did also notice the edits that got you in trouble however, so I decided to keep track of the situation by adding this talk to my watchlist. Now that you're unblocked, like Cullen here said I reckon the best thing you can do is find something that is indisputably positive for the project, and I'm not sure going back to the talk pages is the best idea for that. I know you think that articles are pretty much regulated, and I mean they are to an extent, but vandalism slips through all the time, especially subtle vandalism on low profile articles. You said before you wanted something to keep you busy I think, so why not patrol recent changes instead? Just change the filter to feed you likely problematic edits and you can stay busy for as long as you'd like, that's what I was doing when I started editing regularly and it's satisfying to protect the hard work people have put in to create articles, not to mention often the people they are about. Just a suggestion, no idea if you've done it before but it would be an unquestionably productive activity that would ensure you're a net positive with your contributions. TylerBurden (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI is often a pile-on, and rarely succeeds in both correcting AND retaining editors. Agree with TylerB, recent changes patrolling is probably an area you could be highly productive in. In the Milhist space you surely have enough experience to do basic assessments of new articles. You know the criteria for Stub, Start and C, and it is highly unlikely that you are going to get them wrong or strike a conflict. If you do, feel free to ping me and I will advise on the best course of action. If you look at Category:Unassessed military history articles there are currently 44 articles that need assessment against the WP:MHA#CRIT. Why don't you have a crack at assessing a few and drop me a line after you've done some so I can run an eye over your assessments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: -- You're right about not communicating until today. For those who read this topic, I respond to things constructively not negativity. I was fortunate enough to edit and that's why I completely didn't lose my mind altogether. Hope to work with you in the future, Tyler. Adamdaley (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A few words

Hi Adam, I hope you are in a better place mentally than last time we interacted. One of your recent edits ran across my watchlist and I was a bit worried about the types of fiddling you are still including in your edits. Recall that the whole hullabaloo above was about making changes to the wikicode that have no meaningful change on the page, because those changes (even when combined with good changes) which make it really difficult for others to figure out what parts of the page were actually changed. As a concrete example, doing things like changing {{WikiProject banner shell}} to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} just distracts others, has no effect on the page, and will get reverted the next time someone with WP:RATER uses it on the page. I do appreciate your work in tagging stuff with the correct WP:MILHIST task forces and WP:BIOGRAPHY working groups, so it'd be great if we could keep the good stuff and skip the things that got you into trouble last time. Ljleppan (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• If the rater that you're talking about moves the "living" attributes to be second-in-line of the WP:Biography, then that is not following the template and that is just a "personalised" way of things to be done just like I was doing prior to my ban earlier this year. Why should you be concerned about me fiddling my edits? My editing is something I enjoy doing even though it is clear that I have made an attempt to change my editing since the ban. You enjoy what you do on Wikipedia right? I'm sure a few thousands of other people do as well. Why couldn't I enjoy my time? Adamdaley (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ljleppan - I forget to let you know if my current life is continues, with the homeless and having to move if the family house is sold (of 87 years), then I will not be editing Wikipedia anymore. So that would be good news for those people who don't like what I do on Wikipedia. So good news right? Adamdaley (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I was quite honest when I said I hoped you were doing well or at least better. That said, it's rather obvious that contacting you about this is not helpful in any way, so I believe it's best that I disengage at this point. Ljleppan (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello again Adam, I hope you don't mind if I leave a comment as well. First, I hope you are well, in all ways that a person can be: physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually (if that applies). I'm sorry to hear about this issue with your family home, I hope it can be worked out that you get to keep it, but if not then hopefully you are at least able to make other living arrangrments instead of becoming homeless.

As for Ljleppan's comments, I believe they were well-intentioned. If you are going to resume gnoming on talk pages, you will have to avoid making changes that have no visible benefit, and are just for the sake of changing minutiae of no consequence. I know that in some cases the layout or capitalizations do not strictly follow the template guidance, and therefore it seems like someone else was either sloppy or they got to add it to there personal preference which doesn't seem fair, but you will have to learn to live with that. What's done is done, and unfortunately the spotlight is on you right now, so to speak. You don't want to end up with another block for these kinds of edits, it's just not worth it.

It seems that your time on WP is important to you, so please don't jeopardize it. With that in mind, you may need to find another way to contribute, that gives you some satisfaction, but isn't considered disruptive by others. I know in previous posts from others and myself, there were numerous suggestions put forward that you could follow to contribute in ways that are beneficial to the project, so why not give some of them a try? I think you should go back over those ideas, and see if any can be a meaningful outlet for you.

Good luck to you Adam, I believe that with a little time and effort, things can improve for you. Feel free to contact me, either here, or by email if you prefer. Cheers. - wolf 15:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thewolfchild; Ljleppan; Peacemaker67 - I know Ljleppan didn't mean to be critical. At the same time, it's only two or three white spaces that they are willing to revert my edits. As Ljleppan cannot see or anyone else cannot see the changes made then, it's on them. Yes, I do not want another "block" or "ban", its clear that I have learned from that ban. My personal life has been very complicated since August 4, 2021, that I've had to deal with things like homelessness, mental issues, anxiety, the ups and downs of my life and weight loss of 13 kgs this year. As I said before I enjoy my time on Wikipedia, people just tend to destroy what I do just over a few white spaces and "good faith" changes? In this last 2 weeks, I think the reality of being homeless has increased. In the end, I have made constructive edits. Adamdaley (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm done. I and a plethora of other editors have offered you our sympathies and tried to guide you towards something fruitful to do. You are clearly refusing to listen to everyone giving you advice, and are instead doubling down on doing edits like this that are just inscrutable. Just look at that diff. You managed to touch every single line on that talk page header area, highlighting almost every argument in the diff, for... what? The only useful change here is the removal of a single argument from a single WikiProject banner. You were just blocked for this exact problem above. This message is the last attempt I will do to solve this on your talk page. I will not engage in a prolonged discussion or debate. It is becoming obvious you have no intention of listening to me, or even admins who have just blocked you. If you are determined to continue editing against consensus while failing to adjust your behavior despite concerns expressed by many editors (see your block above by Cullen328) my next step will be to take this to ANI. Ljleppan (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  One poorly edit? 99% have been good. I knew after I did that edit, you'd be as we Australian call it "up sh!t creek". You don't own that. Just leave me alone and take a zanax. Why you always looking for confrontation? I'm minding my own business. Adamdaley (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ljleppan... I don't listen to you cause I don't want to smooth things over with you. Honestly, you just want to be confrontational. One lousy edit and you lose your nut. That's why I don't get into things like this, I tend to stay away from things like this. By all means check out all my edits since my ban expired if you want. My life is a living hell as it is clearly stated above. You need to let this slide as I'll be unable to pay for monthly internet in the near future, I'll be 100% offline and you won't have to do with idiots like me. Adamdaley (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm off to bed. I'm sick of having this crap. No wonder I'm even scared to edit my own talkpage for being confronted. Adamdaley (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not one single edit, it's pretty much all of them. Just look at your four most recent edits: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Massive, inscrutable diffs that I struggle to fit on a single screen. The solution to being "scared to edit your own talk page" is to adjust your behaviour, and stop doing the things that just got you blocked. Ljleppan (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, you gonna get off my back? They fit great on my 23-inch screen. If you get off my case, I'll consider my edits. Adamdaley (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ljleppan - Give me 48 hrs and in the meantime, I'll go over my edits in the morning if I ever get to sleep tonight. Was going to bed till I saw your message. Adamdaley (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: - Simon Spoor What should I do with this one, it has a BIG void in the WikiProjects? Any bright ideas? Adamdaley (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: - How about this Simon Wessely What should I do with this one? Adamdaley (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: - Aubrey Hodges (cricketer) I'm unsure what to do with this one. Gonna give myself the sh!ts soon. Adamdaley (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ljleppan - Did I pass on this one? Aubrey Mansergh - What score did I get? Adamdaley (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello Adamdaley, I just wanted to say thank you for assessing and marking the politician priority the talk page of Abdisaid Muse Ali as low, I'm not sure how I missed doing that when originally adding in the WikiProject information! Nothing more I wanted to say, just thank you because I really appreciate it 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 02:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Johnson524 - It's not a problem. Adamdaley (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm done.....

I've decided that with concerns of what I do add is being overlooked. Sure, maybe a white space or whatever on a line, maybe different. I wish to thank those editors who have thanked me privately and to @Johnson524: for being constructive. So Johnson524, it's been a pleasure helping you. What can someone do, when someone or people tend to overlook things regardless what it is in life. Could be that the Canberra Raiders fumbled the ball too much. Or Michael Jordan didn't score enough points in a particular game. George W. Bush, should have been elected for a third term instead of electing Obama. Maybe the Russians shouldn't have invaded Ukraine in 2022. Ultimately, life sucks, whatever you choose to do. As I said earlier, I'm going to "try" and get some sleep, cause I was about to go, until I saw Ljleppan's message. This time, I will be considerably less edits over the next few days. I just have a feeling that this is going to happen again and not get any sleep at all like that other night a few months back. Remember? I clearly do! Adamdaley (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Adam... you may very well be "done", except there's a chance that it may not be on your terms, but an admin's. Looking at the edits you made, (the ones linked above by Ljleppan), they are pretty much the very type you were blocked for. And the comments and insults you've posted here in response will do you no favours. The best thing you could do right now is strike them and apologize. Ljleppan hasn't gone to ANI about this, yet. But then again they don't have to. They have already pinged Cullen to this latest development here (that's the admin that blocked you.) You could be facing an indef block now, unless you do a full reversal and do some damage control. For example, along with an apology, perhaps commit to a voluntary t-ban from all talk page banner shells for say... 12 months. Then lay low for awhile and start looking for something else you can do on Wikipedia. As I've said before, there's plenty of things you can choose from, surely you can find something else to work on that you will enjoy. But the thing is, you can't do anything if you're blocked. I see you've mentioned a few more issues from real life that are pressing on you right now. I sympathize, as others will as well I'm sure, but real life problems will not give you a free a pass from blockable behaviour. Don't do anything rash, but don't just sit and hope this blows over either. Even if you can't access WP for a bit because of some financial issues, you will again at some point, so you'll want to have an active account. Anyways, this is just some friendly advice... take it or leave it. I just noticed things taking a bad turn here and thought I try and help you turn it around. Good luck to you either way. - wolf 22:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan:; @Thewolfchild: - I was able to get an average sleep last night. I want to apologise for what was said last night. As I did say after returning from my ban, that I don't respond well with criticism. Yet, Ljleppan, chose to tell me considering what I said about criticism. As I said, I will review what points have been made, but you have to remember, does people want the job I do? That's a serious question. No they don't is the simple answer. I understand that I said I may not edit much over the next few days and as Thewolfchild said, I'm hoping that things will blow over. Within those points ljleppan are things that I have added, yet they have been ignored. I also said that I may not be here for much longer regarding my expenses for certain things, such as the monthly internet. I soon could not be editing with no internet. Adamdaley (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan:; @Thewolfchild: - I've been contemplating, why has the "good information" I've added in the WikiProjects have been ignored? That's what I don't understand in all of this. No matter, what I say, Ljleppan throws it back at me. That is why I'm hesitant in commenting on what they've brought up. As I've said before, I've had so many thank me privately, yet, I find that Ljleppan just can't let the original situation go, and has come back for a second round and wants to make me, feel horrible. Like I said above, I'm time soon will be up where I won't be able to afford the monthly internet so there is no point in banning me, I'll just simply be gone. I would never, on purpose make someone feel horrible for something that I don't know how to put it. Who would want to patrol talkpages? Nobody. Thats why I choose to do so cause I find all types of sh!t that other people have never picked up. Whether it might be a Biography duplication, to invalid code, and any other stuff that someone puts in and it gets ignored and left there. I'm gonna go, cause I'm feeling my meds kicking in. Adamdaley (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, I see you have been blocked, which is a shame. I had hoped you would be able to take on board the feedback regarding your edits and adapt them moving forward so you could continue doing what you enjoy. Anyhow, I wish you all the best as I understand you are having difficulties in your personal life. I hope these resolve themselves favourably for you. P.S. I have just noticed a newly created account doing edits to talk pages in a style very similar to yours. If that new account is actually you, be aware, evading a block does have consequences. Zawed (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Zawed on all counts, but especially the last bit. This block does not need to be permanent. If after a little time, you post an unblock request that:

a) contains an apology for the disruptions,

b) shows some understanding of why your edits were problematic, and

c) has a committment to refrain from making any further edits like the ones you were blocked for,

then there is a very good chance you would be unblocked. But, that won't happen (at least, not anytime in the near future) if you are block evading with a sock account. You need to consider how important your access to WP is to you and what you're willing to do to get it back. You have several people here trying to help you, but it's pointless if you won't help yourself. - wolf 01:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ljleppan (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

While banned the first time I felt horrible. Fast forward four weeks later my ban expired. In the majority of those edits for three weeks were an improvement all except five edits that Ljleppan found to be unconstructive. Then a second ban. I want to be able to come back and edit because I get enjoyment from it. It may sound simple, that's what I feel. I know that if I'm allowed back that things would be different because I did show that most edits were made in good faith. I apologise for what I've caused to other editors while at the same time editors need to be aware that sometimes they come across as being negative and when that happens I don't respond well too. So I am requesting an unblock because the majority of my time here has been good intentions and I'm talking until a few years ago. I want other editors to know I care about my edits. I tend to not do edits half-assed or edit something and not care how it comes out in the end. That is why I was so particular about my editing and why I did those fiddly edits. It was because I cared. Many wouldn't understand. I hope in future that something like this will not happen again, because I don't want to go through it a third time. Adamdaley (talk) 4:30 pm, 18 September 2022, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

You have been offered an unblock with reasonable and appropriate conditions, and these have been patiently explained to you. However, you have continued arguing, and then insulted the admin who has been working with you for several days in order to get you unblocked, so they have given up. If you do decide to make another unblock request (which you may), you would need to accept the unblock condition offered to you that you do not edit talkpages except by clicking + or using the reply tool. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2022 (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.

If, perhaps, an unblock came with a ban on editing talk page headers, (not to be appealed for say... at least 12 months), then hopefully Adam would have the opportunity to seek out other ways to contribute to WP that will also saitsfy his needs. This could be a win all-around. It would otherwise be a shame to lose an editor with 16 years & 91,000+ edits experience, who just recently ran into some difficulties. Just a thought. - wolf 18:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much I lost my way in editing. That's what people don't understand, I did enjoy my time here and I would still continue to enjoy it. Other editors did tell me what would happen. It wasn't because I ignored them as claimed. How many people on here claim to enjoy their time? I may not be able to contribute by adding content to articles or have thousands of GA or FA articles to my name. I found ways to help. It may not be what other editors understand, I still found a ton of things to do. Guess you could say that what I did was maintenance. I was even adding other WikiProjects and attributes of WikiProjects to the talkpages and still manage to get banned / blocked to redefine the correct attributes for that article. Not very good at content. Might add a few things to the odd article like spaces etc, change incorrect text. I found one article that had the wrong birthdate listed in the infobox which made the guy younger when he died. I corrected that. I really don't know what else to say. When I know people are stubborn, I like to call them Mr. Personality because their personality is stiff. Even came across some people who were like Mr. McGoo and was likeable. So please when you find out something you really get enjoyment from, think of me and wikipedia. Adamdaley (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I enjoy the vast majority of my time here on Wikipedia. Like 99.9%. I wouldn't be spending my free time here if that weren't true. I would find another hobby. I would assume nearly everyone editing here is the same: they do this because on the whole they find it an enjoyable hobby. Valereee (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - As you can see, I have changed my mind about doing constructive edits. Just please give me a chance cause I know you and @Ljleppan: can see from my recent edits they've been constructive and all I ask is to be unblocked to do those constructive edits. Why are the good edits being ignored? What's the reason behind it not saying that I did good edits 90% of the time. Those 5 that was pointed out by Ljleppan on my second ban were updated current templates. Surely, they must account something positive in the end right? I'm still feeling this bad after all this time! As I said prior to me being banned/blocked, I have had quite a few thank me privately through the thanking link of my edits. So they must think my bad edits were in a way good, I must have around 50 personal thank yours from other editors. Adamdaley (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, did you notice my suggestion above? If unblocked, would you agree to a t-ban from editing talk page headers? I know it's frustrating that you made many good edits, and it's only the few bad ones that got you blocked, but that's where we're at right now. Whether or not you agree with, or even understand why, that your edits to those tp header templates were problematic for other editors, the simple fact is they were, and are. There is a consensus to back that. You can't make those edits anymore, so... if you were unblocked, do you think you could live with such a ban and find other ways to contribute? You've been here for over 16 years and have 91,000+ edits, so surely you can find something else to do, right? Like I said, it would be a shame to loose such an experienced editor, (who up until recently was quite net postive), over something like this. - wolf 07:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand @Thewolfchild: - when you say talkpage headers, you mean the wikiproject banners? I simply just want to be unblocked. Because, prior to being banned the second time, I was adding other wikiprojects as well as improving the attributes of wikiproject biograph and wikiproject milhist. So basically I'm confused if I was adding and following the templates of each wikiprojects then how in the hell did I get banned? Simply following the templates? I get banned yet, this rater tool that people use to assess wikiprojects with isn't following the biography template. Then again that's my opinion I can express concern for this assessment tool that has obviously been approved to be used. I'm simply asking to be unbanned so when I feel the need I'm in the right mind I can simply go and do things without bothering anyone. I appreciate all the support from other editors, who have been trying to help me over the last few months. At the same time, I'm at the point where my personal life is becoming very stressful, very upsetting and emotional. Someone like me who has something like Aspergers, among other things, I go from being angry to breaking down crying and cry for hours. There is no halfway point. If I'm my usual have a joke or sense of humour I'm going from being angry to crying within a matter of minutes. Anyway it's almost 6:00 pm Sydney Australia time, I need to start getting settled for tomorrow's meeting after lunch. Because that'll mean I'm not going to be homeless in three plus weeks when the Trustee wants to sell the house. Maybe it'll mean I can stay in the family home which has been for 87 years. Adamdaley (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, you are aware of watchlists, yes? People add articles to their watchlists and when any edits are made to those articles or the article's talk page, the change shows up on the watchlist. Editors then go to review those changes to see if they are problematic, eg: vandalism, blanking, content added without sourcing, etc., etc., and therefore need to be addressed, or if the edit is an improvement, within policy and doesn't need to be adderessed.

When you make the types of edits that led to your block, the issue is that you are making changes, which then cause the article(s) to pop up on watchlists, and when editors go to review the changes made, it's a problem. Not in the sense that the edit was wrong per se, eg: it wasn't vandalism or an unsourced change, it's just that the edit makes no visible differece to the page. Therefore, some editors feel it's needless and wasting their time. Especially if there are numerous template changes that need to be sorted out between before and after.

There was a consensus that these types of edits, while though they may be technically correct, are needless. Gauging the time taken up by reviewing these edits, along with the aggravation experienced, negates any benefit that may be had. Basically, it makes these edits somewhat of a timesink, and when you're talking about people who are volunteering their time, it makes these edits net-negative. As such, you were asked to stop. This led to a dispute that resulted in your first block, as it was felt that you simply weren't listenting to the concerns being expressed. When that block expired, you continued making the same edits, which lead to your current block.

Now, this is just my take on what has occurred here so far, and why (imho). I know that you have multiple stressors in your life right that are not helping the situation, but unfortunately, (as cold as it sounds) WP doesn't really make accomodations for such issues. You also mentioned you have Aspergers... only you know how much or how little that plays into this whole situation, from the need to make those particular types of edits, to the issues with communication between you and other editors. Personally, I feel for you, I really do, and would like to see you be able to resume editing, but in a manner that doesn't negatively affect other editors.

The simple fact is the types of edits you were making have to stop. There is no point in arguing about that, that's just how it is. If you are to resume editing, you will need to accept that, (which means no longer making those edits and no longer debating it). If you were to resume editing, you would in all likelihood have to accept a ban from editing talk page banners. This would likely extend to any edits, anywhere in the project that result in no visible change to the page being edited. In other words, you would need to find some other way to gnome on WP. That is not the end of the world! There are plenty of other things you could do and there are people here who will help you.

But, first you need to get unblocked. Personally, I think that means modifying your current unblock request to simply say:

you were wrong and you are sorry for the disruption, and

you will accept a ban from editing tp banners and promise not to edit them, at all, until that ban is lifted (say after a successful appeal at 12 months, and every 12 months after if unsuccessful). You can turn this around. Things can get better. Feel free to contact me anytime. Good luck - wolf 09:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: - Just about in bed now. I totally understand. As I said before, I take pride in making sure that my edits were spotless. Towards the end, I was merely putting the MILHIST in the biography section. I'd add anything that was missing in the MILHIST section. Then if the article was Aviation I'd add the aviation / biography to it. Even the country for example United Kingdom or if it was Soviet related and Military related, I'd put the mil=yes for Soviet Union banner. Little things like that I was doing. I'll certainly keep track of things since you guys haven't put me off totally coming back. I just hope @Cullen328: and @Ljleppan: know that I plan on coming back and hope they understand that I'm not such a bad person because of an edit here and there. I'll see everyone in the morning! Adamdaley (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Adam, you should really give Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks a read (or re-read). I'd be very surprised if anybody accepted your request as it stands. Also, WP:NOTTHERAPY would be worth a gander too. Also also, just stop. You're going to end up getting TPA removed, again. – ².O.^Boxing 09:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  So now I can't interact with people? At least I'm not talking behind anyone's back. If I can't talk about what's happening how would you propose me communicate to someone like Cullen328 in 6 months to see if he'd be willing to unblock me? Think about it. I'm sick of people telling me what to do. It's as if I've got nothing better else to do. I can understand why I've never liked you, Mr. Boxing. I'm not having a go at anyone, just trying to communicate with fellow editors. Why should I get my access taken away for that? It's a community, right? Or am I going to be punished because I've been very bad person and rubbed an editor the wrong way? You people want me to communicate with other editors, now I have been you wanna take it away? Adamdaley (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Adam, I think the editor means you should stop trying to debate/justify/defend your edits to talk page banners and templates. And I agree; it just comes across as argumentative and being unwilling to accept you are in the wrong here. That's what led to your earlier TPA being cut off. For now, you need to focus on getting unblocked. That means being contrite and committing to ceasing editing of tp banners/templates as suggested by Wolf. That may help progress the situation. Zawed (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• In all of your comments in this thread you're continuing to argue in favour of your edits, despite the overwhelming consensus being against them. You continue to argue against the merits of your block, even though this has been explained in great detail. The only reason you still have access to your talk page is to appeal your block. If your next comments aren't to answer the question that Wolf originally posed then try not to be too surprised if you find yourself communicating through UTRS. (Talk page removed from watchlist. Enjoy the merry-go-round.) – ².O.^Boxing 11:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

• Adam, I am sorry you're having such a hard time in real life, and I hope it improves.

Here's the thing: you aren't telling us you'll stop doing what got you blocked. I think you understand exactly what that is, but you enjoy doing it and find it a relaxing escape and you don't want to stop doing it so you keep trying to argue that it isn't wrong.

Multiple people have told you multiple times, some at length including myself, why we don't want you to do that. If you cannot accept that and promise not to do it any more, no one is going to unblock you. If you promise you'll stop doing it and then just keep on doing it, you'll be immediately reblocked.

Someone above has suggested above that you might offer to make a condition of your unblock a t-ban from talk page headers. Would you be willing to agree to that? It would mean no editing of any talk page header, not even when you see something visibly wrong or broken with one; in such a case you'd have to post a request for someone else to fix it. Valereee (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, it seems Valereee might be throwing you a lifeline here. The simple fact is you will not be unblocked if you intend to keep editing tp banners & templates, so you have to let that go. Regardless if you think you're right or wrong, don't argue, debate or even discuss them any further. Just put that behind you and don't look back, and don't respond to anyone with any more negative comments. In fact, don't engage with anyone right now, just talk to Valeree. She knows WP is important to you and she knows you're going thru some tough times. But if you tell her you're sorry for the disruption, and that you're willing to accept the t-ban on talk page banners, and do this with sincerety, you might just get unblocked. Then you can find another area to work on, so you can put in another 91,000+ edits over another 16 years. You're a smart person, do the smart thing here. (Don't look back, just move forward). Good luck. Message or email me if need to. - wolf 12:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm right. Why do people call those WikiProject banners and headers? As @Valereee:, I've left comments on several articles talkpages for some feedback (and to ping me with their reply) and there has been no response several months later. @Thewolfchild: I'm trying to look forward, and hope things do improve for me because I don't want to be homeless. At the moment things have become very difficult and I'd love to become unblocked. I've accepted being blocked, even though it may sound difficult to comprehend all those good edits and good intentions over the minority of edits. I wonder if Ljleppan has read any of this or even Cullen328? All I ask is to not block my talkpage access. As for a t-ban, that a temporary block? I've said several times, I am indeed sorry for those minority of edits that got me in this position. I'll end up trying my very best if unblocked that I'll refrain from doing what people found as disruptive edits. Adamdaley (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have read everything, but will leave it to another administrator to respond to your unblock request. That is pretty much standard procedure. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - I appreciate for a re-consideration. It will be very difficult for me to not do what I "was" doing. I will certainly give it a try. Adamdaley (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So, Adam Daley, you're agreeing to:

1. You will not edit talk page headers, period
2. If you see a talk page header that is in reading mode visibly broken or incorrect, you may notify another editor

You're agreeing to this as a condition of your unblocking? Please understand: there is no "trying my very best" here. This is a topic ban with one very small exception. If you edit a talk page header at all, even if your edit is clearly productive and everyone on the project would agree to that, or if you appear to be gaming the system, you will very likely end up reblocked, likely for good. This is not a game at this point. This is super serious: you need to take this completely seriously. I would recommend that you do not even open the code for talk pages.

You asked whether a t-ban is temporary. This one wouldn't be temporary, but it could be appealed. Generally appeals are made at WP:AN after a period of at least six months. I will warn you, though, that if the reason you appeal seems to be because you want to go back to making the same kinds of edits, things won't go well. You are going to have to accept that these edits are not welcome. If you can't do that, you need to find another hobby. Valereee (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Valereee - If I'm unable to leave a message on the talkpage for a particular article, how can I know a change could be done? I'm only asking this to see if there is a way to leave a message for additional information to be added to that talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're unblocked, you'll be able to edit the talkpage to add a request to other editors. Be aware that needing to leave a message about corrections to or additional information needed on a talk page should be exceedingly rare. It would be surprising if you needed to do this more than a few times a year. You absolutely should not be asking for simple additional information to be added; notifying other editors is only needed if there is actual misinformation or some other major issue. If you are unclear about this exception including information you want added, I will remove this exception from the topic ban and you won't be able to notify other editors of something that is in reading mode visibly broken or incorrect. Valereee (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

ETA: are you clear on this? Would it be easier for you if were just banned you from editing code on talk pages altogether? Because you have zero leeway here. Valereee (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that this is very restrictive. I guess I'll accept it anyway. Adamdaley (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Adam, you should really only be concerned with Valereee right now. As Cullen said, he is leaving this to another admin (which right now is Valeree) and you shouldn't concern yourself with Ljleppan right now either. You can read about t-bans (topic bans) at WP:TBAN, but basically, if a t-ban from editing the WikiProject banners and headers on talk pages (the specific terminology would be clarified) is a condition of you becoming unblocked, then it would likely be indefinite (unless a specific time period is specified) but regardless, just like your "indefinite" block, you would be able to appeal the t-ban at WP:AN after a certain time period (again, this would be specified by the admin, but it's typically 6 or 12 months). But this really shouldn't concern you right now becuase there is no way you would be permitted to make those edits anymore anyway... they're the main reason why you're blocked in the first place. If you want to return, you need to forget about those kinds of edits and find a new way to contribute, a different area to edit in. Like I said, don't look back, just move forward. - wolf 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - What your saying is going over my head. As I asked above how could I leave a message if I'm not allowed to even leave a message on that particular talkpage for addition attributes to be updated by another editor? Adamdaley (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So this is making me think we need to make this no-judgement-required. Adam, perhaps you simply should not be editing talk pages at all except to respond to posts from other editors? Valereee (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I suggest something? Adamdaley (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You can suggest anything you like. Valereee (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again) Sorry Adam, as you can see, my last post was an edit conflict, I hadn't had a chance to read those last posts from you, Cullen and Valereee when I posted it. But that said, I think Valereee is right, it would be best to limit talk page edits to replies to discussion threads only. Otherwise, you should probably avoid talk pages and focus on other areas to edit. - wolf 00:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I know about the edits that Ljleppan brought up. I understand what I did and that I added an updated template of WP:MILHIST template to those five articles. I understand that. I've accepted what has happened. I'm trying to correct my way. Clearly, you guys want me to do it your style which ended up me getting banned for doing it my way on those five articles. There are so many articles that have been overlooked and left alone while a limited articles get attention/expanded to become B-class or better assessments. Yes, I'm starting to become frustrated. Adamdaley (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Forget it. I've had enough. I get criticized in saying about my constructive/good edits, and now you guys are saying about the edits I shouldn't do and do it your way. Please don't block my talkpage access. On one hand, you guys say that you hope things improve for me. Yet, I'm getting criticized from being online. How many times do I have to say that I'm aware of what those five edits had done. I've apologised and I won't be replacing whole WikiProject Banners with an updated version of their templates. Once again, I'm sorry for what I've caused. Why can't you guys accept that? Adamdaley (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm really trying here. Why can't you guys see I'm really trying here? Can I propose, that the only edit I do is for the WP:Biography in the sense of adding MILHIST to it and thats it? Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we all meet in the middle? That sounds fair right? Adamdaley (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

All of you might be talking among yourselves. That's fine, I have nothing against that. I'm just asking for me to do a little editing. If I had bad intentions, I would probably have done those years ago. As anyone can see, my majority of edits have been in good faith, yet none of you acknowledge them. Some have stated about the 83,000 edits or how many I have, but that's as far as it goes. Acknowledgement of all my edits, but not the majority of good edits in good faith. I'm really trying here. I'm really trying. Adamdaley (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking to anyone, (except you) if that helps :), but I doubt anyone else here is talking off-wiki either. This is just imho, but I don't think you're in a position to bargain or request to be met in the middle. You really need to forget about editing talk pages if you want to come back (again, jmho). Try to remeber that this (the block and possible unblock discussion) is about the problematic edits, not the good ones. Seeking recognition for the many, many good edits you've made won't help you here. You need to talk about the good edits you're going to make, if you're unblocked (edits that have nothing to do with talk pages and wikiproject banners). Anyway, I can see you're getting frustrated, like you said. Why not take a break, chill out, and come back later? Couldn't hurt, right? Cheers - wolf 01:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It was about those five edits, that Ljleppan brought up for my re-block. Only those four or five! I'll be leaving soon to go do the local mall and get some lunch. The others edits that I made in the three week-period, were never brought up. So it's very selective, I'm trying here. Can someone actually acknowledge I'm trying here? Adamdaley (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, debating what led to the block won't help you. (And neither will repeatedly pinging Ljleppan... not sure why you're doing that). You can actually simplify all this: right now you're blocked, but you have an admin willing to consider unblocking you if you will agree to not make any more talk page edits of the type that led to your block (eg: no more wikiproject banner/template edits). Do you think you can agree to that? Yes? Great! Let Valereee know and take it from there. No? Oh well, you'll likely remain blocked for a long time to come, if not permanently, and you'll have to find a new hobby to pass your time. If sounds like you have enough problems to deal with, so why not make this easy on yourself? Talk to Valereeee, just Valereee', answer her questions, don't try to bargain, don't get flustered, and see what happens. Good luck - wolf 02:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I do the pinging out of respect. Since that user knows what i am saying and not behind their back. Adamdaley (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If i do not edit the wikiproects, can i leave comments on the talkpages? I should be able to, just not edit the wikiprojects? Adamdaley (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Under these unblock conditions, you would be able to respond to comments and leave comments on talk pages, yes. You just wouldn't be able to edit any of the headers. Any edits that can be made with the + button or the reply tool = yes. Edits that require clicking "edit source" at the top of the page = no. Valereee (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Just about in bed. So if I wanted to comment on an article does it really matter what I clicked on? When you say headers does that mean the WikiProject banners? Adamdaley (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

From my understanding from it was only four or five edits that were picked out or questioned by you know who. Not any other edits. Feel free to go over those Archives everyone else seemed to dig up dirt and find stuff. In the morning I'll look myself. Till then I'm going to bed, oh and it does look like I'm gonna be homeless in 21 days, so it wouldn't hurt to give me a little happiness in the meantime. After 21 days you most likely won't hear from me. Adamdaley (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Any edit that would require clicking "edit source" at the top of an article talk page = no. So, no, it doesn't matter what you click on. But if any edit you make requires you to click either the edit source tab or the edit source button beside the Talk:pagename at the top of the page, you've violated your topic ban. So, yes, that definitely includes the WikiProject banners on article talk pages. Anything wrapped in {{ }} at the top of an article talk page is absolutely covered.

So it's probably best for you to simply make a rule for yourself: don't click "edit source" on talk pages. Just click + or use the reply tool. That way you know the edit you're making is not a violation of your topic ban.

I'm so sorry about the outcome for your housing situation. I'm trying to give you some happiness here by offering you the possibility of continuing a hobby you clearly find enjoyable. If the only thing you're interested in doing here is editing talk page headers, things unfortunately aren't going to work out.

Please don't go looking for proof that most of your edits were helpful. I'm sure it's true; you don't need to prove it to me, and it won't change anything. Unfortunately it seems that in talk page headers, you either can't tell the difference between the ones that are helpful and the ones people find disruptive or you aren't willing to stop making the unhelpful ones. No amount of arguing that most of them were good is going to change that, and frankly the longer you argue about it the less likely anyone will ever agree to lift a t-ban, and frankly I'm starting to wonder if I'll even be able to get Cullen on board here. So stop arguing. Go get some sleep and think about whether you're willing to accept this t-ban and adhere to it in order to do other kinds of edits. Valereee (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is going to be my one of my last edits. What I don't understand, is I was banned because I needed consensus. But when asked if I needed consensus for 82,000 articles, the reply was no I didn't. I'm very sorry for anything I have caused certain editors with the minority of bad decisions. Clearly I have learnt my lesson and I know what ones were a problematic edits. I'll have to attend to some business from yesterday in seeking a lawyer for my personal circumstances in regards of living arrangements and to stop the destruction caused by the Australian Government and the debt the family has been put into because of them, even the homelessness I'll be facing in 20 days from today. I appreciate those editors who are trying to give me some access back and I also appreciate all those editors over my time here who have thanked me privately, in their eyes, I'm glad I was able to assist in those edits. I made a decision, I wouldn't come back today, but I wanted to let how my appreciation is for those editors who I have received their respect. Adamdaley (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, you've mentioned you are neurodivergent. One of the things those of us who are neurodivergent have to accept is that when everyone around us is telling us something we don't understand, we just have to accept it as something we need to deal with. We are telling you that this whole "did I need consensus for 82,000 articles" question is just silly. I could try to explain it again, but you and I both know it's a waste of time because it's not going to make sense to you. Stop arguing and deal with it as a fact of life: you're going to need a rule to follow, and I'm offering you one which may possibly allow you to work here. Valereee (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Thats what I was told. So basically, i'm confused who to believe. Because one person says one thing, then another person is saying the opposite? So now you've got a PHD in diagnosing me with something. You're the second person who claims what apparently got who has a PHD this week. Dr. Valereee. Im sorry, but I've been getting mixed responses. There are countless policies yet, I'm being told differently and no one understands that the majority were good. So someone is in denial. From three weeks of editing five edits were questioned. I understand what I did with those five. I better just leave it at that. I've accepted my fate and been remorseful about the questioned articles. You guys can't deny that. Adamdaley (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Best wishes to you Adam, I'm done. Someone ping me if anything seems to be productively changing. Valereee (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

When sh!t hits the fan, people can't accept the truth. I'm at the point where people have not only destroyed what I love the most in my life, and yet not intentionaly have made thingd worse for my reality. 19 days till i'm homeless and in my spare time i don't have things I love love to enjoy to do. Nobody can come to me, and apologise what they've taken away. It's like losing a loved one. Go after people who have done 99.9% of bad sh!t on here. I've accepted that due to some individuals they don't care about wikipedia. It is obvious. I took pride in what I did, yes, a minority if edits were bad decisions. Now, Wikipedia can slowly go into backlog where nobody cares. I'm not a bad person. @Valereee:. I just want my happiness back in my life. It doesn't cost anything for people to give my happiness back. Adamdaley (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: - with concerns to the 82,000 Article why would this person say that I didn't need concensus? As you can clearly see that only four or five edits was brought upon my second ban. As I've said, I've accepted that those were questionable to another editor, which was you know who! The majority of those edits prior to my second ban, WikiProjects were expanded in association of extra attributes and even new WikiProjects were aded. Adamdaley (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, something happened while replying to the last. As I said extra attributes were added while other WikiProjects were added. I'm not arguing, just stating that those were not single handedly were brought up and questioned. Not in this case. Only five were questioned and as you or anyone can see, I can see were things went wrong and I acknowledge those and it was a very poor judgement on my part for those that wouldn't have been questioned because I simply added a current and upto date WikiProject in place of the old one which could have also been extended with attributes. Something weird is happening while typing this message out. There are way too many policies in place and as you know who, stated that I ignored those editors. No. I took it on board and moved on. It wasn't until my second ban as you can very clearly see I was in a more positive thought process. Why do people ignore those edits that were not questioned and see a change? I'm very sorry for those five as I keep saying, and won't simply replace a whole WikiProject which got me banned for the second time. I feel for those who think I'm simply arguing, I'm simply showing proof that there was a change. It's like people want to only see the bad evidence and ignore the good. Once again, I'm sorry, and I merely want my happiness back before I am 100% homeless. People say I'm arguing, I'm presenting facts. Nobody wants to hear the truth. Adamdaley (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Valereee - I see you've been commenting with Ljleppan obviously nothing wrong with that. I feel that they could have had things slide on my second ban. I don't want to throw accusations at the named editor above. I keep coming back to say that with things on here becoming similar to my reality, I just want to have a little happiness. I'm so over in trying to tell you guys I know what edits were problematic, I've identified them and realise that those five were now questionable and how can we move forward together? So it's a waste of time that possibly two editors have told me I didn't need concensus for 82,000 articles yet you along with other people in society can't address the queries I have put forward? Do I need to stand on my head, do tricks to earn my happiness back? It's all upto a few people for things to progress. You're one of them... As you can see throughout the messages I've replied with, you cannot deny I've addressed and identified those edits in question, like the above named editor clearly knows how much added sh!t I've had to go through and I'm realising that this person doesn't give one sh!t about other people. I just don't think I can handle anymore of these feelings or replies are clearly being ignored. If you want me gone, tell me to piss off, and I will. You won't hear from me again. Eighteen days till I've got nowhere to live so how can I have the internet and edit Wikipedia? It's just not possible... Adamdaley (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Valereee - Just let me know what's happening, because I'm done trying to ask someone to give me another chance. It seems like people have given up on me. In the end, I know I've tried. I ask Ljleppan to please allow me to come back and they know I've been sincere in the last few days. They know what they did especially with those five edits. Yet, they can't seem to accept I've recognised and identified the problem. I just ask for some happiness before I leave completely leave Wikipedia in a little over two weeks. Till then my happiness is rather up in the air and it's killing me. It appears you are hesitant just like my mothers' Trustee he turned out to be a lost cause, cause he really needs a holiday. He always seems stressed. Adamdaley (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to keep pinging me, but since you keep bringing me up even as I'm trying to keep myself uninvolved, two points: 1) I'm not an admin, and have zero say in your block or when/how/if it is reversed. Those decisions were made and will be made by others who the community have trusted with adminship. Even if I was an admin, I'd recuse myself from this discussion. 2) The five edits you keep referencing were literally the four most recent edits you'd made at the time I began drafting my post (i.e. effectively a random sample) plus a recent edit that had caught my attention in my watchlist. They were and are not an exhaustive list of "these are the bad edits, others are good." -Ljleppan (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a sign of respect. I'm sorry for whatever a caused. Can you acknowledge that I'm sorry? I realise you are not an admin, I've never tried to talk behind your back. I remember you thanked me for my contributions, then on the other hand ripped my heart out so-to-speak. You did have a say in my ban. Can't people accept I'm sincere? I realise what was problematic, all I can ask is can we move on? Or basically tell me to piss off, and if I knew how to close an account on Wikipedia, I'd close it myself now. It's clear to a couple of editors don't want to see me go and I appreciate that. Just need to confirm things for me to piss off, I'll gladly do so. Just let me know soon! Adamdaley (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Adamdaley, you listen to me right now: I know you're stressed. If you do not stop making explanations about why you're not in the wrong here, I am removing talk page access. I have been trying to give you a lot of leeway here because of your situation, and it's obvious that other admins watching are doing the same because no one else has removed TPA yet, but the very next time you ping anyone to this page for anything other than to tell them "I accept the suggested topic ban restrictions", I or someone else will remove your access to this talk page. Valereee (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I read your message a while ago. I planned on not replying. As I've kept saying, I'm sorry for what has happened. I understand what has happened and why. All I've asked is for a little happiness before I am going to not come back in a few weeks as my anyone knows my situation and have some 18 days remaining with internet access. There is a very good chance I'm not going to here very soon and you won't have to deal with me again. I'm not saying I am completely right, I know some edits were a positive change regardless what you or anyone says. I will ask nicely once more to have a little happiness for what time I have left. Adamdaley (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're rejecting the conditions offered for an unblock? Valereee (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I've never said anything about "rejecting the offer". I have merely been waiting for things to move forward. As I keep saying I'm waiting on progress and I have sincerely apologise for what has happened to the what I've caused to other editors that clearly have been concerned over the last eight weeks or so. I do acknowledge, that I haven't gotten on with every editor in the 16-so-years of being here since 2006. If I could redo all of this 8-week period. I have merely said I've accepted what has happened and I see where I went wrong. Nobody can accept that I've stated that. Once again, I'm sincere in what I've done to cause this. I can no longer be sincere enough and it's all in the hands of admin to progress forward. If they want to ban my access on talkpage, I'd be even more sincere that that happened and I'm grateful that it hasn't happened a second time. So I can either leave this as it is currently and not be heard from in coming weeks as I've said previously. I clearly wanted to clarify what was I can do and cannot do. I hope if I am able to stay with restrictions, that hopefully one day, I'll have full access in say six months or a year. As people have said they don't want to see me to go and I totally agree with them, I don't want to 100% go. A nice suggestion, Valereee, could you make sure that on your userpage that you do have it clearly marked as you being an admin as I couldn't confirm that by looking at your userpage. So it's in your hands. Once again, I am 100% sincere. Thanks. Adamdaley (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're accepting the conditions offered for unblock? Valereee (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, that's upto admin. If done sometime in the few hours, I'd be happy. I'll have that little happiness before things go downhill in coming weeks. If not, I'll have to accept being beyond sincere for what has happened over the two months. Adamdaley (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, nope, it's up to you at this point. If you don't agree to the proposed restrictions, we don't go forward, and you stay blocked. I need you to write "I agree to the proposed t-ban". Write it or don't. Valereee (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As I keep saying, I'm sincere. Can't you people understand that? as I said above, if I was able to come back, that maybe six months or a year later, I could be at 100% access. I'm accepting. What more do you want? Do you want me to say it three times over? Adamdaley (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't need you to say it three times over, just needed you to say it once. So, okay, you've accepted the terms:

1. You will not edit talk page headers, period
2. If you see a talk page header that is in reading mode visibly broken or incorrect, you may notify another editor

@Cullen328, do you think this is something you'd be willing to consider? Valereee (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to if I want to come back. I'm accepting. For clarification, I can leave a message on that article talkpage right? Or would I need to link that article from my talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Under this t-ban, you'd be able to post to article talk pages. Valereee (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I just wanted to see if I could post a comment on that particular article for additional help. Lets say, 9 months from now and things go smoothly? Would I get 100% access back? Adamdaley (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

A t-ban can be appealed, but the kinds of edits that got you blocked aren't going to be okayed. These are edits Wikipedia considers not simply not-helpful but actually problematic. You cannot argue or explain your way out of this; these are edits Wikipedia does not want. If your primary purpose in accepting this t-ban is to get to a point you can start making these edits again, just stop now and go find another hobby.

Wikipedia is never going to see edits to talk page headers that do not affect the reader view as helpful. We are always going to see them as a waste of volunteer time, and that is always going to be seen as disruptive editing. Valereee (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm merely asking. Given a period of time would i get full access back? I qanna say more but guys dont want to hear the truth. So just please answer my question and so i know given a period of time do i get full access again? Adamdaley (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO you are unlikely to be able to edit without limitations for certainly months and possibly years. Your every response here in this discussion has increased the length of time for that. Valereee (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh well. I know the truth, I'm merely waiting for whatever is happening. I'm accepting so the ball is in your court. Adamdaley (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to work for full access how ever long that maybe. I'm sincere and I'm accepting. What more can I do? I am genuinely sincere and accepting. Adamdaley (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Valereee, I commend you for making such a serious effort to work with Adamdaley, and if you believe that unblocking would be good for the encyclopedia, then go ahead and do it. But you asked for my opinion and so I will give it. In the gigantic walls of text on this talk page, I see no evidence that this editor understands the magnitude of the problem and is committed to editing in an entirely different way if unblocked. All I see is repetitive wikilawyering. I am very sorry for the negative things that are happening in this editor's life off Wikipedia, but our concern must be what's best for the encyclopedia. I leave the decision to you. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, thank you. I am kind of resigned to the fact you may well be 100% right. I guess I see this as one last chance for this editor to be able to do something they enjoy in a way that will actually be helpful for the encyclopedia. There are so many small, repetitive tasks that other editors find tedious and this editor might enjoy and find relaxing.

Adam, I'm going to unblock you under these terms:

1. You may not edit talk page headers in any way. If an edit would require you to click "edit source" tab at the top of the page or the "edit source" button beside the page title, it is a violation of this topic ban and will result in an indefinite block.
2. If you see something visibly wrong with a talk page header in Read mode, you may post to the article talk page an edit request. This could include requesting other editors to add appropriate WikiProjects to the page.
3. You may appeal this topic ban after six months.

I would highly recommend that you start listening to the other editors here who are trying to help you find some other gnomish work that will both interest you and be considered helpful. I believe you can do that. Please don't prove me wrong, here. Valereee (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If not talk page MIL templates, then what?

Adamdaley, a recurring theme I'm seeing, is a lot of uncertainty about what you might possibly do, if you are facing a t-ban on Talk pages in exchange for having your block lifted. From previous experience reading your comments and interacting with you, I know you like to sit in a corner of Wikipedia where nobody will bother you, doing kind of formulaic or almost algorithmic changes to a particular kind of structure, and then go on to the next one and make a similar type of change; rinse, repeat. Am I right, so far?

There are many, many tasks of this nature at Wikipedia; so much so, that this type of work at Wikipedia has a name: Wikignoming. I can think of one thing that you could do that you would be really good at, and might be just the kind of thing you would enjoy: it's fixing up WP:BAREURLs in references. Naturally, there will be a brief learning curve at the beginning—just as there was for fixing MILHIST templates—but in no time you'll be churning them out like cookies coming out of the cookie cutter machine. And, it's *really helpful* to the encyclopedia to have BAREURLs fixed. First you find one, then you fix it, then you go on to the next one. Sound familiar?

You can find articles that have BAREURLs by starting at this category. Pick any article you find there (let's say, Adir Zik), click it, go to the § References section, and find a reference that starts "https://..." instead of a title of some book or website. You'll find one there in reference #5. Click the little '^' symbol right after the '5', and it will jump up to footnote '[5]' in the article, which you'll see is in section § Commemoration. Edit that section, and you'll find the BAREURL: "<ref>http://www.nrg.co.il ...</ref>" So, now you've found it, next step is to fix it, and that's where the learning curve comes in. What you want to do, is replace the BAREURL with a regular citation. Once you learn how to do it, it is nearly automatic; there are various tools that make this part very easy. Once you've replaced the BAREURL with the citation, you add an edit summary ("Fixed BAREURL "), and hit 'Publish'. Voila, you're done! Back to the Category list to click the next one, and on you go. This would be really helpful to the encyclopedia, and nobody will ever bother you about it; you can just sit around all day churning them out with no interference. How does that sound to you? (P.S. I am not a BAREURL-fixer expert, and there may be better ways to attack this; if you like the idea in principle, User:BrownHairedGirl may be able to give you a better way to approach it.)

I got the feeling that part of the difficulty you're having, is in conceiving of anything different from what you've been doing so far that would both interest you and keep you busy, and where no one would bother you. That's why I wanted to mention this, to give you a vision of what your post-MILHIST template career at Wikipedia might look like, if you decide to accept a t-ban on your previous activity area. The thing is, fixing BAREURLs is only *one* type of Wikignoming, and there are dozens more things like that, so that if this one doesn't appeal to you, there are many more to choose from. I bet Thewolfchild or valereee could think of other ones like that; maybe there's even a list of them somewhere. I hope this helps, Adam; and best of luck to you. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot - I knew you'd left a message, but I didn't see it here at the bottom. As said to Valereee above, I appreciate those editors who have tried to help recently. As some haven't quite resembled helpful. For example Ljleppan I felt this person (don't know if they are male or female) that she was attacking the good edits I have left or even made. That's why I came across as attacking or hostile when they brought up those questionable edits. Anyway, I must get ready as my support worker is coming in 15 minutes. Once again, I appreciate all the help I have received over the years. Adamdaley (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you see my message now? You should be able to.

As a side issue: if you want to use pronouns for someone whose gender you are not sure of, you can use any of the "they"-series of templates you see in the table at Template:They; for example:

Temp collapse to avoid truly awful rendering, while this Tfd just opened, remains active.

Valereee's pronouns are {{they|valereee}} → she, {{them|valereee}} → her, and {{their|valereee}} → her Deepfriedokra's are: {{they|Deepfriedokra}} → he, {{them|Deepfriedokra}} → him, and {{their|Deepfriedokra}} → his You have to set your gender in Preferences for this to become "he" or "she"; if you don't know about it, or don't change it, it just stays in the 3rd person: Adamdaley's pronouns are {{they|Adamdaley}} → they, {{them|Adamdaley}} → them, and {{their|Adamdaley}} → their Ljleppan's pronouns are {{they|Ljleppan}} → they, {{them|Ljleppan}} → them, and {{their|Ljleppan}} → their

so when referring to Ljleppan by pronoun, you should probably refer to them with they / them / their. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adam, it might be easier to follow comments here if you archive or otherwise remove the two automated comments above about the milhist coordinator election. That said, I noticed your reply above about leaving WP. I think that's a mistake. It's easy to get frustrated with the unblocking process, especially when you have other pressing issues going on at home, but Valereee is giving you an opportunity to return, and you don't know if you'll change your mind later and regret passing up on her offer. I also know you're unhappy about the way things played out, with Ljleppan, and the number of good edits vs bad edits, but you really need to let that go and move on. If you decide to move on completely from WP, then I wish you the best of luck. But you've been here for 16 years, you may just find that at some point down the line that you wish you could do some editing. You should take Valereee up on her offer, accept the t-ban, and not look back. As I've said before, there's plenty to do on WP, take Mathglots's suggestion of fixing bareurls, for example; I've fixed a ton of those myself and I can tell you it's an important and needed task here, and one you might just find worthwhile, if not rewarding. But... you need to be unblocked first. Anyway, give it some thought and don't make any rash decisions. And in the meantime, I hope things start getting better for you IRL. - wolf 00:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I took pride in making sure what I did with the WikiProjects. I know they weren't broken, it was more to clean up and made sure they were right especially if a bot came along, after me the bot could understand what was there. I'd correct anything that was wrong or misplaced. Honestly, I'd love to come back to fix the backlog of articles on WP:MILHIST was also another factor for what i was doing. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: - As you can clearly see by what I've said today. As usual people couldn't give a sh!t about wikipedia and how much garbage is on talkpages. It's either they really don't go looking for stuff or they just turn a blind eye and worry about their own backside and ignore the truth, I've been saying. I've presented my facts and they are being ignored. Anyone who is still open minded please feel free to reach out to me, as I know I've still got a lot to offer. I would like to express my concern that the ones who have the power to turn the things around and make a positive impact should speak up. Yes, I maybe a little slow, but that shouldn't give other people the right to criticise me for being a little retarded. I'm as equal as anyone else in society, it's just I've been labelled and been told I'm too retarded to contribute to society. I can show you my edits recently and you wouldn't tell I was crazy. Pretty much if someone dishes sh!t out, they'll eventually have karma and they'll be treated badly as they badly treated certain people. Yes, I hate ignorance and quite alot of people are ignorant to things day-to-day things. That ignorance will always be in society. All I want us my happiness back before I am totally homeless and without internet. I guess it's a positive thing because you won't have to deal with me anymore. It's a shame that the good sh!t couldn't be realised before my homelessness in 19 days. Adamdaley (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Geeez, Adam... what happened here? You are so close to getting your block lifted, yet it seems like you're bent on self-sabotage. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm just shooting straight with you, as I have been, with no bullshit, because I want to help you. No one here, that I can see, has called you "retarded" (and ftr, I hate that word). You self-identified as having Aspergers, multiple times. As such, Valereee simply used the agnate term neurodivergent, and you may have noticed she said "us" at the same time. She was not looking down on you or insulting you, she was trying to relate to you, so that she can continue to try to help you.

I know you have a lot going on right now, and can't begin to imagine what it's like to be in your shoes, dealing with all the stressors you're facing, but if editing this project is important to you, and you don't want to add being blocked indefinitely, with no talk page access, to your problems, then here is what I suggest you do: Take a day off from posting responses here. Then, if you find a moment when you are calm and collected, come back, apologize for these remarks, ask Valereee if her offer is still on the table, and if it is, thank her graciously and accept. Make sure you are clear on what the t-ban entails, what you can and cannot edit, and then start looking for a new area to edit in. You can try Mathglot's idea of fixing bare urls, or you can try something else. As I've said, there's plenty to do and there are people who will help you. Now, that's not all, and this is important: you need to forget about your past edits. You need to stop arguing about what was good, who said what, minimizing the bad edits to only five, this comment about a consensus for 82,000 pages... all of it. There is no way that continuing to try and debate those issues will get you unblocked. You will not be allowed to edit wiki-code for talk page wikiproject banner and headers again, not for a very long time, if ever, so you really need to let that go.

Like I said, I am just giving it to you straight, and you really need to be on the same page with me, here and now, because I don't think you can drag this out any longer. You should've accepted Valereee's offer the moment she made it. It's really only that, or remain blocked, and likely lose talk page access as well. So, this shouldn't be a tough call to make. Yet you keep looking backward, debating issues that are well past debating, pinging people to the point of harassment, and continually claiming you want things to be simple, when at same time complicating matters. People here want to help you. They are sympathetic to the very serious problems you're facing, but patience and good will can only be stretched so far. So please, before you post anymore comments, give the advice I'm giving you here some thought. Allow yourself the time to do so in a calm and thorough manner. I hope you take this advice seriously, and in the next day or so, come back and decide to continue to be part of this project. It would be shame for things to go the other way. - wolf 17:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm being very honest. I can no longer be so genuinely remorseful and apologetic. I can so certain edits that were constructive especially those that were raised at ANI. I was willing to revert those edits if I was given a chance to do so. As someone brought up the "watchlist". I have roughly, 280 pages of editors, templates and so on my watchlist. Every so often I do maintenance on that, where I require to not watch certain articles anymore, so they are simply removed. I think I have been able to say that those edits will never happen, and I think those four or five were brought up, I may have simply replaced the whole an upto-date WikiProject template from the old template. I seriously want to give evidence that I have indeed added attributes to certain WikiProjects. While I'm thinking that, I think that editors will seriously think I'm trying to "argue" my point. What can you do if nobody wants to see a little truth and just want to take the bad as bad sh!t. I'm at a point, that I'm so genuinely trying to sort it out. I appreciate your words of wisdom. I simply don't know what to do now, because I've got some seventeen days till I am homeless with a houseful of contents and no where to live. May as well go sleep in the park across the road and take my pillow and blanket to just speed things this up. Let's say that I was able to give one WikiProject back together, one-edit-per-day. I'd be happy with that. This whole incident of me in reality has been going on since August 4, 2021. I've learnt so much about life in the last six months than I have ever done. My mother has been forced to live in a place where she simply doesn't want to be and to return on for me to help her, like I did prior to August 4, 2021. The New South Wales Government has gone to lengths to discredit me and make my so called "labels" of Asbergers that I'm "intellectually disabled" and they claim I have been abusive while visiting my mother, which is another lie. But yet, as my a good family friend says if I can operate a computer and a digital camera, among other technical devices such as a PlayStation, TV, cable tv, then I must have good good brains left at the age of 42. The person telling the NCAT tribunal hasn't got a PHD, she is just a public servant for the Government. That's it. A public servant, nothing even close to resembling anyone in the medical field. In the end, I've got just over two weeks of living in the family home of 87 years, since 1935. Because they want to keep my mother were she is and doesn't give a crap. These staff members at the Aged Care Facility (ACF) don't have university certificates of being a Nurse. They've just done a course in nursing and no certification was awarded especially at a University level which is accepted here for being a nurse. I only did upto Year 11 in High School, majority either quite after Year 10 and go into the workforce or they complete Year 12 and go to University. At this period of my life (that 2 years) anxiety, depression, etc played a big factor and still to this day, I have no idea how I completed Year 11. What amazes even with all these problems and labels, I managed to live in the Philippines for 10 weeks straight renting a place and traveling the Philippines myself. 10 weeks of cold showers. But it'll be memories for me that I'll always have. If you sat down with me somewhere over lunch, I've got a lot of stories to tell someone if they are willing to listen. If I'm not either totally angry at the world, I'm at the other end, balling my eyes out for hours. Then if you get me on a very good day, I've got countless stories and a sense of humour. I don't mind having a good joke here and there. So basically, I've only got three emotions. By looking at me, I look like a normal person, it's just I've got a bad upper back and neck due to being premature at birth. I can walk and do sh!t, just the odd thing I'd need a little help with. It's time for me to start settling for the night. Had my 2-minute noodles for the day, that's another thing, for 13 months, I have only been eating once a day. I've lost 13 kilograms in that time, so basically a kilogram per month I'm losing. In life I've tried to do what was right. When I was born, I had merely a 10% chance of surviving birth since I was so sick when being born. As Marc Mero says in his speech "Marc Mero's Emotional Mother's Day Story" (google it), "he believes he was kept here for a reason after survive three drug overdoses". Since my mother didn't give up on me at birth for several months, I have simply repaid my mother by fighting for her to bring her home the last 13 months. I've never once given up on my mother to bring her home. Adamdaley (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Well Adam, that all sounds terrible. I mean it, the situation with your house, the gov't, and your mother, the nurses and everything else, it all sounds just awful. In looking at your last post, and all your responses to Valereee, I have to again say that you should try to spread out your time here, and reply when you are calm and can focus on the issue at hand. Obviously your situation at home comes first, but when you're here, you should try to deal with the situation here. Valereee has offered to lift your block if you agree to the t-ban. It appears that you have accepted that. Going forward, you will have to respect the boundaries that come with it. You keep asking when you will have full access. She can't tell you that now, no one can. The only way to find that out is to wait the 6 or 12 months (whichever limit is set) and then post an appeal at WP:AN, requesting to have your t-ban lifted. No one knows which admins will respond to that request, or what their decision will be, so you'll have to wait. But I can tell you one thing: if you keep trying to bargain changes to your t-ban for extra access (such as: "just one edit a day, or just one wikiproject, or just to fix some of your past edits") that will negatively affect any appeal down the road, and if you keep doing it right now, it may just affect your unblock deal! So I have again say: you. must. let. all. that. go.

If/when you're unblocked, you should take some time, focus on what's going on at home, but when you have some time to edit, come back and figure what areas you'd like to edit in, (eg: perhaps give bare urls a try.) But whatever you do, don't bring up your past edits and don't try to negotiate any changes to your t-ban... it will get you no where, except to possibly shoot yourself in your own foot. Just keep looking and moving forward, while you're on WP. If you need someone to talk to, about anything that's going on, including your past edits, your blocks, the t-ban, or anything else, feel free to email me and we can talk off-wiki, where you don't have to worry about anything you say. I can't physically sit down to lunch with you, but I would be happy to talk to you just the same, to hear your stories, and even let you vent should you need to. Email me anytime to get that started. Meanwhile, Valereee has opened a door for you... all you have to is say "thank you" and walk through. Can you do that without dragging this out any further? I think you can. So just do it already, and let's wrap this up. Let Valereee get back to her editing and adminning, and with your block lifted we can start checking out other areas for you to gnome in. Whenever you're ready... - wolf 09:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As I keep saying I'm at the point where I'm 2000% apologetic and I've realised my past. I think if said that I'd be willing to work on it over a period of time. Whatever it maybe. For my living situation, I simply cannot put a time frame on it. It could be over quickly, or it might be several months. I'm not sure and it looks very uncertain for me. I knew twelve months ago, that the house could potentially be sold and over this last week, it's becoming more of a reality of being sold. A place where my grandmother paid off over a series of years since 1935. So that's 87 years give or take and mum and I have been here full time since 1984, when I was about four. Managed to see some of the world on government benefits. Fiji, for ten days. United States over a six-week period, Singapore International airport and the Philippines four times including that ten-week period on my second visit. Managed to help a family to increase their little sari sari store in Manila. I'm pretty much uncertain if I'll have a permanent internet connection like the NBN WiFi here at home. I may resort to a WiFi dongle from Optus. Can be topped up every 30 days, it'll be slow, but it will all I could afford if I'm forced to rent somewhere and lose the family home. Adamdaley (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks WP:MILHIST

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Thanks for letting me do what while I was there. Even though I admit I didn't like everyone at WP:MILNIST, I learnt to live with that. As you are aware a ban has been put into place and with things in reality like homelessness in 18 or so days with a houseful of contents, I'm not sure what I'll do with everything, I'll definitely keep some things like my PS2/PS3/PS4 and tv with my desktop computer and a lifetime of photos. I'm sorry that not only do I need to leave a final comment for you guys before anything unannounced pops up that I won't be able to reply. I know some of you were there when I needed guidance. I just hope you like LjLeppan as a contributor for the WikiProject. I wish things were differently unfortunately I must leave with tears in my eyes while writing this. Once again if I don't reply, thank you to everyone who has supported me over the last 12 years. Mahal Kita - if you know Visayan. Adamdaley (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess you'll have to find a dedicated editor to go through the 24,868+ backlog of articles in WP:MILHIST unfortunately I'd do it without any complaints. Once again, I wish things were under different circumstances. Just so many ignorant people out there like Ljleppan. Obviously doesn't give a sh!t about other people! Anyway, that's my opinion. Once again thanks for letting me feel part of the WP:MILHIST family for so long! If you don't ever hear from me, I'll keep an eye on the backlog when I can get a chance to see the progress. Adamdaley (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam, a lot of people are trying to help, but the snark and the attacks in the two comments about Ljleppan really need to be left behind, and preferably struck out, because they are a good faith editor with only the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. Even if you don't agree, trust me that this sort of language doesn't help you now, whatever your opinion of them. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh! Just saw this now. I have to agree with Mathglot here, Adam you need to strike those comments about Ljleppan, like immediately. This is part of "putting things behind you and just moving forward". Regardless of how you feel them, or anyone, you can't post personal attacks like that. That is a policy that applies to everyone, at all times, but especially to you, right now, becuase you are on very thin ice. It would be a shame if all the efforts of the people trying to help you were wasted and you permanently lost your access to WP, all because of such a pointless comment. You have commented many times about your fear of losing talk page access... something like this can do that. You really, really need to just wrap up your discussion with Valereee about your unbkock request. That is the only thing you're really allowed to use your talk page for anyway. All these other comments, basically anything that isn't about you talking to Valereee about your unblock, are really not allowed right now, and may serve to be your ultimate undoing. While your blocked, this unfortunately applies to the extended comments about your personal life as well. If it helps to share, pick an editor, (or editors), that you trust and ask if you can contact them off-wiki. I've already advised that you can email me, but it doesn't have to be me. It would be better if you can contacted someone off-wiki to discuss personal matters, vent about your block situation, your past edits, or anything else, while you're blocked. In the meantime, you really should strike those comments, and an apology wouldn't hurt either. Hang in there man, you are so close to getting back in. - wolf 16:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm remorseful. Yes I'm sorry for saying that. I'm remorseful for what's done. What more can I do? Nothing and just wait. As I keep saying I am not sure if I'll be around after the next in three weeks time for Wikipedia. Can't people sense that? Adamdaley (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)