User talk:ZeZeNapsid002: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:16, 6 October 2018

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Goldfish has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Goldfish was changed by ZeZeNapsid002 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.878358 on 2018-07-18T04:27:16+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Common goldfish has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Common goldfish, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please discuss these edits on the talk page per WP:BRD. And read WP:MINOR Meters (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Goldfish

Hello, I reverted your edit to Goldfish removing Carassius burgeri from the synonyms list. This unaccepted synonym is notable enough to appear on WoRMS [1] as a synonym for Carassius auratus, which is the proper scientific name for the goldfish. Thus, I don't see why it shouldn't be listed. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)--HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZeZeNapsid002: Why would you move the page User:HighFlyingFish to Talk:HighFlyingFish? I have moved it back. Sam Sailor 06:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Please present your rationale and more importantly, sources, for why we shouldn't list these synonyms e.g. on Talk:Goldfish. Otherwise you will keep being reverted. Hopefully we can come to a consensus. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Carassius auratus subspecies 1

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Carassius auratus subspecies 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello ZeZeNapsid002, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Comet (goldfish) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Comet (goldfish), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you are adding references please do so properly, inline. Don't just drop text into the references section because we don't know what your reference is supposed to be supporting. And make sure that they are properly formatted. For instance, in this edit you added a malformed ref manually to the references list without adding any material to the article, and you also removed an external link with no explanation. Please read WP:REF Meters (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you also read WP:BRD and WP:EW. When your edits are undone it is up to you to discuss them on the article's talk page. Do not keep making the same edits. Meters (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have not heeded the advice of Meters, and you keep making unsubstantiated edits, and adding content that has serious grammatical and other problems. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dermies

About this, why do you take away grammatically correct info?? Some of these facts are unreliable source. ZeZeNapsid002 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was not grammatically correct. This message isn't even grammatically correct, and you misspelled my name. Plus, the information was unsourced. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah why so?? Afterall, English language is my favorite responsibility, and I can edit things better than you as long as the info isn't unreliable. Take your glasses and see it better next time :). Dont think any source or info could be right. ZeZeNapsid002 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC) ZeZeNapsid002 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies

It's not your real name tho, and I mentioned before, my grammar is correct, and you don't notice. Theres many unreliable source and wrong info. Still stands. ZeZeNapsid002 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you are writing grammatically correctly, you are not competent enough in English to edit here. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says who?

Oh yeah why so?? Afterall, English language is my favorite responsibility, and I can edit things better as long as the info isn't unreliable. Take your glasses and see it better next time :). ZeZeNapsid002 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You may be blocked from editing if you edit disruptively. When you get reported to ANI you are not allowed to delete the report against you. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nigorobuna

Hello. I reverted your edits to Nigorobuna because the concerns I raised at Talk:Nigorobuna#Taxonomy Section were not addressed. Why did you use a fishbase article about the Japanese white crucian carp which is a different species, to support recognition of the Nigorobuna as a species? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy material you find elsewhere online

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. I found some copyright problems on Wakin goldfish. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jikin goldfish moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jikin goldfish, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Draft:Jikin goldfish. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

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 ~~~~}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy. You cannot resume editing until you provide a clear statement that demonstrates that you have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted,. By purpose or by mistake??

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).

ZeZeNapsid002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, this is me, Zezenapsid002. As you administrators not know me, I am a new member in Wikipedia. I am not an adult to understand this whole situation about copyright, but I understand what to do on adding sources. I add sources by using the reference, then take the first, second, and third reference from different sources to combine my article into a whole summary. By the way, I can't able to explain that to Dianna, unfortunately because she cannot hesitate to let me chat that I am "not following the guidelines of Wikipedia". As the admin clearly does not see what I do, I'm mostly lazy on my point of view, I edit, leave the edit, then come back hours later and add a source. Sometimes I had been betrayed couple of times and block for that reason. I take things slow but seriously, and I can't allow people writing the edits that i done. Such as the Jikin goldfish article (witch i made after the Wakin goldfish article), the List of Goldfish Varieties, and the common goldfish. I might be "outsmarted" by these members, because what they think is what they believe according to certain, or somewhat, unreliable source. Wikipedia needs to get better by taking new reliable source and innovate each article to get the better geist to everything. I really believe this is all a misunderstanding, by the way, it is hard to understand what a new member has to go through this, and this is a really tough decision. I can't edit no more, the people blame on me for being a vandal, and I cannot have a choice to say anything to them by what I am have concluded.

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can't really understand what you mean by "take the first, second, and third reference from different sources to combine article into a whole summary", as copyright is nothing to do with the way you combine things. What copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy require is that when you add material to Wikipedia you write everything in your own words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ZeZeNapsid002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Copyright is a legal right, existing in many countries, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others.The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation on copyright on ideas is that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the underlying ideas themselves

Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Copyright Policy, like Boing! said is that you have to write everything in your own words with most evidence that are basically from sources.

I read copyright is not allowed in wikipedia because of the same ideas, sentences, and other subjects that are otherwise classified as copyright. Works without enough "originality" (creativity) to merit copyright protection such as titles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols or designs, font design, ingredients or contents, facts, blank forms, etc. cannot be copyrighted.

In order to use copyright content, you should have to ask the original publisher of the website to use some sources of the web to claim as the copyright holder.

In the future, I would strictly avoid copyright predicament by following the guidelines of Wikipedia and fully understand why I should not use copyright, or published copied text, from the web.

I believe that is it, if I didn't have some improvements on these reasons I should/not be unblocked, I may beseech to kindly understand of what I took in the summary. I have done it late, but at least I gain access of knowledge to read sources.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=*Copyright is a legal right, existing in many countries, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others.The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation on copyright on ideas is that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the underlying ideas themselves

*Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Copyright Policy, like Boing! said is that you have to write everything in your own words with most evidence that are basically from sources.

*I read copyright is not allowed in wikipedia because of the same ideas, sentences, and other subjects that are otherwise classified as copyright. Works without enough "originality" (creativity) to merit copyright protection such as titles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols or designs, font design, ingredients or contents, facts, blank forms, etc. cannot be copyrighted.

*In order to use copyright content, you should have to ask the original publisher of the website to use some sources of the web to claim as the copyright holder. 

*In the future, I would strictly avoid copyright predicament by following the guidelines of Wikipedia and fully understand why I should not use copyright, or published copied text, from the web.

I believe that is it, if I didn't have some improvements on these reasons I should/not be unblocked, I may beseech to kindly understand of what I took in the summary. I have done it late, but at least I gain access of knowledge to read sources. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=*Copyright is a legal right, existing in many countries, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others.The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation on copyright on ideas is that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the underlying ideas themselves

*Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Copyright Policy, like Boing! said is that you have to write everything in your own words with most evidence that are basically from sources.

*I read copyright is not allowed in wikipedia because of the same ideas, sentences, and other subjects that are otherwise classified as copyright. Works without enough "originality" (creativity) to merit copyright protection such as titles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols or designs, font design, ingredients or contents, facts, blank forms, etc. cannot be copyrighted.

*In order to use copyright content, you should have to ask the original publisher of the website to use some sources of the web to claim as the copyright holder. 

*In the future, I would strictly avoid copyright predicament by following the guidelines of Wikipedia and fully understand why I should not use copyright, or published copied text, from the web.

I believe that is it, if I didn't have some improvements on these reasons I should/not be unblocked, I may beseech to kindly understand of what I took in the summary. I have done it late, but at least I gain access of knowledge to read sources. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=*Copyright is a legal right, existing in many countries, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others.The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation on copyright on ideas is that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the underlying ideas themselves

*Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Copyright Policy, like Boing! said is that you have to write everything in your own words with most evidence that are basically from sources.

*I read copyright is not allowed in wikipedia because of the same ideas, sentences, and other subjects that are otherwise classified as copyright. Works without enough "originality" (creativity) to merit copyright protection such as titles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols or designs, font design, ingredients or contents, facts, blank forms, etc. cannot be copyrighted.

*In order to use copyright content, you should have to ask the original publisher of the website to use some sources of the web to claim as the copyright holder. 

*In the future, I would strictly avoid copyright predicament by following the guidelines of Wikipedia and fully understand why I should not use copyright, or published copied text, from the web.

I believe that is it, if I didn't have some improvements on these reasons I should/not be unblocked, I may beseech to kindly understand of what I took in the summary. I have done it late, but at least I gain access of knowledge to read sources. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Diannaa, Boing! said Zebedee, good luck with it. As you can see if you look up, I had a run-in with this editor too; they have only a rudimentary understanding of English which I believe they augment with a glossary--there is no other explanation for gibberish such as "I may beseech to kindly understand of what I took in the summary". And yet they argue that "Afterall, English language is my favorite responsibility"--whatever that means. I see no reason to unblock, and I was this close to blocking indefinitely per WP:CIR (plus the edit warring, of course). I doubt they know what you're talking about: "I read copyright is not allowed in wikipedia because of the same ideas, sentences, and other subjects that are otherwise classified as copyright" is incomprehensible, and the sentences and fragments here that are grammatically correct are copied from somewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ZeZeNapsid002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So what you were saying you want to still judge and of course want to block me indefinitely because you were blocked before? That's very amusing reaction! Anyways, I have already spoken my summary, there is no need to grossly judge at a person wether or not they understood. Some evidence I used are from a handful of reliable sites, but I analyze them carefully. And whatever you were saying, "whatever that means", people have responsibilities on their favorite subjects, if you know what I mean.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=So what you were saying you want to still judge and of course want to block me indefinitely because you were blocked before? That's very amusing reaction! Anyways, I have already spoken my summary, there is no need to grossly judge at a person wether or not they understood. Some evidence I used are from a handful of reliable sites, but I analyze them carefully. And whatever you were saying, "whatever that means", people have responsibilities on their favorite subjects, if you know what I mean. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=So what you were saying you want to still judge and of course want to block me indefinitely because you were blocked before? That's very amusing reaction! Anyways, I have already spoken my summary, there is no need to grossly judge at a person wether or not they understood. Some evidence I used are from a handful of reliable sites, but I analyze them carefully. And whatever you were saying, "whatever that means", people have responsibilities on their favorite subjects, if you know what I mean. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=So what you were saying you want to still judge and of course want to block me indefinitely because you were blocked before? That's very amusing reaction! Anyways, I have already spoken my summary, there is no need to grossly judge at a person wether or not they understood. Some evidence I used are from a handful of reliable sites, but I analyze them carefully. And whatever you were saying, "whatever that means", people have responsibilities on their favorite subjects, if you know what I mean. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 I believe that is it, if I didn't have some improvements on these reasons I should/not be unblocked, I may beseech to kindly understand of what I took in the summary. I have done it late, but at least I gain access of knowledge to read sources.}}
 *{{U|Diannaa}}, {{U|Boing! said Zebedee}}, good luck with it. As you can see if you look up, I had a run-in with this editor too; they have only a rudimentary understanding of English which I believe they augment with a glossary--there is no other explanation for gibberish such as "I may beseech to kindly understand of what I took in the summary". And yet they argue that "Afterall, English language is my favorite responsibility"--whatever that means. I see no reason to unblock, and I was ''this'' close to blocking indefinitely per [[WP:CIR]] (plus the edit warring, of course). I doubt they know what you're talking about: "I read copyright is not allowed in wikipedia because of the same ideas, sentences, and other subjects that are otherwise classified as copyright" is incomprehensible, and the sentences and fragments here that are grammatically correct are copied from somewhere. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
+{{Unblock| reason= So what you were saying you want to still judge and of course want to block me indefinitely because you were blocked before? That's very amusing reaction! Anyways, I have already spoken my summary, there is no need to grossly judge at a person wether or not they understood. Some evidence I used are from a handful of reliable sites, but I analyze them carefully. And whatever you were saying, "whatever that means", people have responsibilities on their favorite subjects, if you know what I mean.}}