User talk:Lima Bean Farmer

Welcome!

Hi Wjrz nj forecast! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Sdkb (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent you from 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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, would you mind being more specific on why you have blocked me from editing? You sent me an article about unsourced editing but it had nothing on it about being blocked or specify why I was blocked. I plan to request to be unblocked but I would first like to work with you to understand why blocking me was what you did. Thank you for your time Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

No warningWjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. You have been previously and sufficiently warned about not adding unsourced content, as evidenced by the two discussions above. Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, and you are expected to abide by it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:24, 15 May 2020 (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 had previously made some edits which some people thought were controversial. Since then I have not edited any of those pages. Last night I made some edits on other pages, and followed the guidelines which my fellow editors gave me. Since I did not believe that the edits were controversial, I did not add a cited source. Based on the articles which AldezD, Schazjmd, and NinjaRobotPirate gave including the reason to block me, state that I only need a citation if an edit was controversial. I did not believe the edits I made were controversial and added them in good faith. Some point last night, while I was asleep in my time zone, I was brought to the administrators board and would like to have responded. When I woke up this morning, I was blocked. Once again, the pages where my edits were reverted I have not touched. I would have appreciated a warning from NinjaRobotPirate, but I never received one. I was just blocked. I promise not to add any more unsourced edits. I enjoy Wikipedia discussions and was about to participate in one before I realized I was blocked. Thank you Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page already has enough warnings and doesn't need another. You seem to think that the burden is on other people to add citations to your edits, but policy says it is on you. That means that you can't tell people to go find a citation to verify content that you've added. Statements that have been challenged are, by definition, controversial and require a citation. If you can demonstrate that you understand how to add a citation, I'll unblock you. Just reply below this message, here on your talk page, with an encyclopedic statement that has an inline citation. Please ensure that the source verifies the statement and is reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Broadway shows have had their production halted until September 6, 2020. Ryan McPhee (May 12, 2020). "Broadway shutdown extended through the summer due to ongoing coronavirus crisis". Playbill.com. Playbill.com. Retrieved May 15, 2020. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, I hope you honor your deal and unblock me.

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).

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

Request reason:

Fulfilled request Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

NRP is welcome to unblock if he wishes, but since that reference above is not actually formatted as an inline citation, I'm not convinced you actually do understand how to cite information here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:58, 15 May 2020 (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.

NinjaRobotPirate said I’d be unblocked if I demonstrated how to cite a reliable source. Since I have done this I hope to be unblocked and to continue productive editing.

All Broadway shows have had their production halted until September 6, 2020. (Ryan McPhee, May 12, 2020). Is that better Yunshui? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway productions have been suspending through September 6, 2020. <ref>McPhee, Ryan. “Broadway shutdown extreme through the summer due to ongoing coronavirus crisis”. Playbill.com, May 12, 2020. I followed the exact format for inline editing. Yunshui or NinjaRobotPirate please unblock me now. I made edits in good faith and won’t do it again as I’ve said before. I really don’t want to make another official request to be unblocked.

Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Followed guidelines and administrator requests Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you, but please consider that policy says that "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" requires a citation. That means that if someone challenges your unsourced addition, it can not be re-added until you provide a source for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for once again requesting that I be unblocked. I would like to continue making productive edits (at least make comments in talk pages) as soon as possible. I have reviewed Wikipedia’s policy on being unblocked multiple times. I will not post any more controversial comments without a reliable source. Administrators have asked me to show a sample of a cited edit which I have showed. I did not realize that the edits that I made were controversial/required a source. Previously, I have not reverted edits unless I believed them to be reliable or necessary. Other than that I have not engaged in edit warring and have taken other administrators’ and editors’ advice as well as “contacted” them. My edits were not malicious. I appreciate your time, I have not been purposefully making flagrant requests. Each time I do I am promised to be unblocked but then I never am. Your fellow Wikipedian, Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z17

I’m sorry this has been a complete misunderstanding. I will change my username, as I was willing to do with User:AlanM1 and on the administrators board. I am not sure what you mean by promotional content, I have never posted anything that I believe promotes a business. I am not paid by anyone, I am aware that that is against policy. Please point me to where you see promotional or advertising content. I really did not mean for anything to be promotional or advertising. Please explain User:Orangemike. Thank uou Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is "Wjrz nj forecast" and then for a userpage you post "Follow the 2020 House Elections!!! And the Covid 19 shut downs." How are we to interpret that, if not as an advertisement for people to listen to WJRZ in New Jersey? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry, I meant that I follow the 2020 elections and the covid 19 shutdown. That’s where I have done the majority of my editing. I was most definitely not intending to encourage people to listen to WJRZ. I will also delete the section stating that says follow the elections. I really am not promotional nor am I paid by anyone. Thank you User:Orangemike Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you let me change my username and my user page, we can put this behind us as a complete misunderstanding. Thank you User:Orangemike. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lima Bean Farmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

same as above

Decline reason:

You had 3 (three!!!) open unblock requests. That's abusive. There's no reason, ever, to have more than one open unblock request at a time. I see your username has been changed and you are free to make one (exactly one) more unblock request which addresses your inappropriate edits and which tells us what you'll write about instead. Note that I didn't review your multiple unblock requests, so this is a procedural decline. Note if you make multiple simultaneous unblock requests again, you will be clearly demonstrating you lack the capability to edit here and will lose access to your talk page. Similarly if you make an unblock request which does not address your promotional edits or which does not tell us specifically what you'll write about instead. Yamla (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

globally renamed Wjrz nj forecast to Lima Bean Farmer

globally renamed Wjrz nj forecast to Lima Bean Farmer --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that I can be unblocked now Deep fried okra? I appreciate you renaming me, but why are CaptainEek, Yunshui, and NinjaRobotPirate being asked about this? I have nothing against these users but I was just wondering if it was a procedural thing. Since the block was due to my username and it has now been changed, I feel that an unblock would be fair, especially since Orangemike said it would be. Also I apologize, but I don’t see how to make your username bold, so apologies for that. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought this would go better. They either blocked or declined to unblock. I cannot unblock on my own. . --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 13:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: If this block was only for the username, I have no objections to you overriding my decline and lifting the block. However, the block notice is for promotional edits. --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Good point. I think the promo edits have been dealt with somewhere in this growing maelstrom of a talk page. I will not unblock without a consensus. Lima Bean Farmer-- for the sake of my poor eyes, please reiterate how you will avoid promotional editing. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 14:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained about 10 times that I never did make promotional editing. I simply put on my page “follow the 2020 house elections and the covid 19 pandemic.” This was meant to state that I follow these things as this is where I do most of my editing. It was never meant to be promotional, just bad grammar. I’ve already stated so many times that I would change this to say that’s what I follow. User:Orangemike found this as a reason to unblock me. User:Yamla, you’d unblock statement did not seem to be in good faith. As much as I don’t like to give up on things, I feel that I will never be able to edit again. I’ve asked that my account be re instated so many times. There’s only so much I can do. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) – I've been watching Wjrz/Lima's edits since their odd behavior on Talk:Kim Jong-un in April. They have not made promotional edits to mainspace articles. The "promotional block" was based on their original account name and the unfortunate wording on their user page, both of which have been rectified. They made a number of unsourced edits but eventually understood that they needed to include a citation with their edits and began doing so. After watching them submit unblock requests that got no response, I believe the repeated unblock requests might either have been done for fear they did it wrong so they tried again or frustration at nobody replying. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been changed and your account unblocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note now you are unblocked, you are free to remove all of the content, including the accepted and declined unblock requests, from this page if you wish. You are not at all obligated to do so; you are free to leave them here if you prefer. --Yamla (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. For your expeditious work on List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, ensuring individuals added meet WP:ENDORSE. Thank you for your work, keep it up! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing/dash

Hi Lima! Re this edit, and perhaps prior edits to said list, there's a space that you've been adding between the content and citation, for example: –2020)[space]<ref>. There should be no space between the content and citation, as this is consistent throughout Wikipedia. It should appear like this: –2020)<ref>.

Additionally, to conform with MOS:ENTO I've converted all of the dashes (-) to en dash, which is –. To locate this specific dash: 1. Look above the edit summary function, 2. press "Wiki markup" on the drop down list, 3. the en-dash is the first dash after "insert". Eg. So if we can turn this: (1986-2004) into → (1986–2004), that would be great!

You've been a real asset to Wikipedia, please keep up the great work! kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I don’t see an edit summary function. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lima,

I'm referring to this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

Directly above it you'll see the "Insert"/"Wiki markup" drop down box. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I’m real sorry, but I don’t see any of that on my screen. I don’t see the “minor edit” box either. After I make an edit it comes to a page that says “how did you improve this page” and I can type in an edit summary. None of the other stuff is there. I’m not sure why. Should I ask at the tea house? I don’t want to inconvenience anyone with these improper dashes so I’d like to figure this out before we start editing again. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lima, no need to apologise! :)

You will only see the edit summary function box when you start editing an article. The "minor edit" box will appear directly under the edit summary box. Directly above the edit summary feature is a drop-down menu which lists a number of things, such as: "Wiki markup", "Insert", "Symbols", "Latin", "IPA", and so forth. If you press "wiki markup", next to the drop down menu will appear many different characters/codes that can be used in articles or talk pages, wherever really. The proper dash to use is the first dash shown (indeed, first character shown) once you press "Wiki markup".

Does that make sense? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I think you are using a different device which may have more features. For the future, I can copy the dash you added and paste it where I need it. Thank you so much for letting me know about that! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is very strange. I'll follow that up for you. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So Lima, I've reached out to someone who is evidently more switched on than I am :')

You're right, you don't have it. That's because it needs to be activated within your preferences. To do this, you go to "Preferences" (on top right of any Wikipedia page when logged in) → then press "Gadgets" → then, under the heading "Editing", tick the box that says next to it "CharInsert: add a toolbar under the edit window for quickly inserting wiki markup and special characters (troubles?)". Once you tick this box, go to the bottom of the page and hit "Save". And there you go! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I don’t have preferences in my top right hand screen. The only thing in the top right is a bell and a thing that lets me search articles. I’m sorry that this has been an inconvenience. I will copy and paste the dash you added or I won’t do this type of editing at all. Thank you for going through so much trouble. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's so strange. I don't know why that's the case. Either way, no need to apologise as this isn't your fault. Please continue editing where you please (especially that list, you do a great job). I'll fix the dashes here and there, no problem! kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I think it has to do with me using an iPhone to edit. I appreciate you spending so much time on this issue! Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I've never edited with my IPhone. I imagine that would be difficult! No worries, anytime. Likewise, happy editing! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the help?

Guy, where was the help? You said that you’d support the unban on main space pages and then you immediately said you opposed it when I brought it up. Then I added how I wouldn’t make the same mistakes again. And then that was it, no comment. You said that you would support minimizing a ban to just main space and that is definitely not what you did. I was very disappointed by this Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've see your user talk page comments where you criticize editors for not coming to your assistance but I don't see anywhere in these words an acknowledgment that you know why an admin placed this block on you despite multiple people saying that you were using subpar sources. Instead of blaming other editors, take this all as constructive criticism and agree to never use these types of sources again. That's what an admin wants to hear instead of denials that you've done nothing wrong. This block isn't to punish you but to protect Wikipedia articles. Listen to what editors and admins are telling you and make sure you don't make these mistakes again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I understand that the block was put in place due to the independent sources and unreliable sources, and I know I was banned for this, and I have agreed not to add them again. I’m also not blaming other editors (not sure why I’d do this) nor am I saying I did nothing wrong. I’ve understood what I’ve done wrong and would have rather resolved it without admin attention, but it’s clearly too late for that. All I’m asking is for the ban to be main space only. That way there is absolutely no way I can disrupt the project and in case I do make a mistake, an editor will catch it before it is added to the page. Then, when I’m allowed to edit main space again, I will have better knowledge of what to and not to add (not that I don’t right now, but clearly no one will allow me to edit main space). Thoughts? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that you cannot edit main space, you are incorrect. There are about six million articles that you are welcome to edit. You just need to stay away from post-1932 U.S. politics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸, most of my edits are based on the news. I’m actually kind of scared to edit anything because it could somehow be misconstrued as politics after 1932. Like that lgbtq club article I made, or just the suggestions at the talk pages. Could you please explain to me the reason why other admins are so resistant to letting me simply use talk pages? I’ve found the resistance to talk page privileges confusing. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All I’m asking is for the ban to be main space only. That way there is absolutely no way I can disrupt the project" It is certainly possible to edit disruptively on article talk pages. In fact, it's only a few weeks since you were blocked from a talk page for disruptive editing there (it looks like you never acknowledged that, and did not quite seem to ever really understand it either). And reading the various threads you have posted on multiple user talk pages, as well as on admin boards, it does not look likely that any admin would consider it a good idea to decrease your ban – it's clear that you don't understand what the problem is, to the point that you repeatedly fall into the same patterns of habit that caused the ban in the first place, even though multiple editors have spent a lot of time explaining the issues. That is time that would be better spent on improving the encyclopedia – so you have the chance to do that now, instead of beating this dead horse. --bonadea contributions talk 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea, I do understand why I was blocked from the talk page, I kept claiming “not support” was “oppose” which was a violation of biographies of living persons which is not acceptable, even on talk pages. If you give me talk page privilege, I will use it only to suggest ways to improve articles and throw my own two cents in on rfcs or disputes, I promise not to violate any blp rules, and will ask for confirmation/consensus on anything that I’m unsure about (from a reliable editor). I know you think this is a dead horse, but if you were appealing to me on not being allowed to edit all the pages you edit, I think you probably would do the same. Please use perspective and have a little sympathy for me, I’m just trying to help improve the encyclopedia. If I wasn’t trying to do that, I wouldn’t be spending so much time appealing. Also I’d be uncivil and edit war, and use a sockpuppet to edit. But I know that would all get me in trouble, and I’m here to stay, so I don’t do that. I just ask to be able to add suggestions at talk pages Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely any administrator is going to look at an AN discussion one day ago in which multiple admins were unanimously against loosening your restrictions, and make a unilateral decision to loosen them anyway. I've said it before and I won't bother repeating myself again after this, but you'd make a lot more progress if you just tried to take the advice you were given rather than insisting upon something that was already firmly decided against yesterday. Just because most of your edits have been based on the news does not mean they have to continue to be, or you could focus on articles that are related to non-political news. A quick browse of The Washington Post shows:

Or you could try any of my random suggestions from yesterday. It concerns me that you can't see that writing about a contemporary American organization pushing for political change was too close to the line. You yourself wrote that the group "help[s] elect both statewide and federal officials". It is not hard to avoid the topic area, and your claim that some of the suggestions from yesterday "could somehow be misconstrued as politics after 1932" does not hold water. You would have to try pretty damn hard to somehow make an edit to Enneapterygius howensis that overlapped with post-1932 American politics, I think. If you don't want to edit outside of the topic area, fine, no one is forcing you. But to claim that you can't is absurd—you are by no means the first person to earn a topic ban in that area (Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#American politics 2), and at a glance it appears many of them are still actively editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I appreciate it. I will continue editing, but I also want to work on my case for when the opportunity comes to get my ban loosened (obviously not today, hopefully within the week), I want to have the argument prepared and have admins understand I know before I go back to the noticeboard that I won’t cause any trouble if I am allowed on talk pages. Do you agree this is a better strategy? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to demonstrate you can edit productively outside of the topic area for a period of time longer than a week. I would suggest a month at minimum. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I would agree for a full unban, but I’m only asking for talk page access. I don’t think getting to edit talk pages in a week should be that much of a problem. If you have reason to oppose, please let me know. I appreciate the advice! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to have a restriction loosened the day after it was implemented, and even after it was SNOW closed you've continued to lobby for the change to be made. As far as I can tell you've not even tried to take a shred of advice that multiple users have been kind enough to give to you, and it looks like this will be just another piece of advice thrown in the discard pile. It's highly unlikely a topic ban would ever be loosened one day after it was placed, and it's similarly unlikely that such a request would be granted only one week after it was just denied. Doing things like continuing to ask individual admins to loosen the restriction, and appealing it at AN again in a week, is only going to further the impression that you are fixated on being allowed to edit in the American politics topic area even at the expense of other editors' time. I will almost certainly oppose if you appeal so quickly; a week is not sufficiently long to demonstrate that you can edit productively outside the topic area for a sustained period of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, once again, I’m not asking to edit the articles, only the talk pages. I thought since the admin who wanted the ban also agreed to having it loosened, the admin noticeboard would go better. I still don’t see why you oppose just talk page edits. Clearly American politics is an interest to me. It’s like you’re opposing just to oppose. Why don’t you revisit the subject in a week and see how I’ve been editing instead of making up your mind now? I’m being forced to edit different articles but no one’s forcing you to oppose my ban be loosened (not lifted) next week Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misunderstanding you; it would be loosening the topic ban to allow you to edit AP talk pages, which is what I was referring to above. I will of course revisit in a week and ensure my opinion is the same, but you did just ask me "If you have reason to oppose, please let me know," so I did. And no, no one is forcing you to do anything; the only restriction is that you not edit AP articles. I have simply advised on how you can best make a case for the restriction to be loosened, but if you'd rather just sit out the three months that is of course an option as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I would not like to sit out three months. However, you are saying that you will oppose my ban being loosened in a week for the reason of it being a week, and nothing else. If you have opposition (like “you haven’t addressed problem X” or “I would like to see you show examples of reliable sources”) then please let me know, but I don’t think you’re best helping me make a case by simply stating you’ll oppose it in a week because that’s not enough time in your opinion. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained to you precisely why I expect I will oppose such a request. If you don't wish to listen, I can't force you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear User: Lima Bean Farmer, thank you for spotting that my old account, User: ACEOREVIVED, was listed as a missing Wikipedian. Thank you too for removing it - I am now active under the name Vorbee! Vorbee (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee, of course. I am glad that you are still active! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alainr345 missing in action

To tell you the truth Ma'm, years back I grew dissatissfied with the absurd attribution of hierarchy at WP: seems people there are more preoccupied with "cleaning things" than with putting more relevant content online. I may get back more frequently in the future... if I do not find something more interesting in life to do. (alainr345) --72.10.149.168 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure where to leave a response so I will place it at my talk page and the talk pages for both your IP and your former frequently used accounts. Thank you for getting back to me! It’s a shame you think of it that way, I think there are plenty of spots that could have improvement and relevant information. However, if you believe differently, then good luck with wherever life takes you! Since you clearly are still here and edit sporadically (not fully retired), I will not add you back to missing Wikipedians. Even if you are busy with life, I hope you still have the chance to check back in and let us know how you’re doing every once in a while. If you ever do fully retire (hope you don’t!) then you can add a retirement message on your talk page. Happy editing and enjoy life wherever it takes you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

An indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics

You have been sanctioned for using a sockpuppet to evade your 3 month topic ban in this area

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that bans apply to you as the person and not to the account. If you use sockpuppets to evade this 9 month block and/or now indefinite topic ban, you may be blocked indefinitely. Consider this as your last chance before getting an indefinite block. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk to me, you must be mistaken. While it’s true that I have violated copyright, edit warred, added unsourced information, as well S various other infractions in the past, I have not sockpuppeted (is that the right term?). I really only check my email notifications on this account and it appears that there is now an indefinite ban on me. I truly have been waiting out the 3 month ban (I read the investigation) and stopped editing because other edits were boring. I am not this other user, I am not related to nor friends with him/her/them. While I looked a little and they seem to have similar interests, it is not me. Please remove this, as this is just one large misunderstanding. I hope you can understand. Thank you and happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppetry. The technical evidence is very clear here. You are very lucky this block was not indefinite; it still could be. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk, I’m sorry, technical evidence? What does that mean? I honestly know that I’ve done things wrong before, but not here. I was also falsely accused of advertising when I really only didn’t know the username policy. I really only have one account and this is it. Please reconsider this block. I have waited almost two months, my ban was almost over. Why is everyone so opposed to me editing here! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't wait two months though, you created another account and used that instead. There's no sense denying it. – bradv🍁 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the page about checkusers to find out what technical evidence is. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lima Bean Farmer. Since you can't stay away from politics, I have a suggestion. Why not join WPTC when you're block is up? We are in need of editors, and I think you would be an asset to us. You may get unblocked earlier, and I highly recommend doing it, to avoid further trouble(and because we need help). --Hurricane Tracker 495 22:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane, you’re the only person here who seems to be assuming good faith towards me here. Before I attempt to respond to anyone else, could you please explain to me what WPTC is? Thank you and happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP: WPTC is the WikiProject for tropical cyclones. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane, it’s very kind of you to say that I would be a valuable asset to the project, but out of curiosity, why would you think this? Especially since you relate it to politics. Once again, I appreciate it, but could you tell me why? This may help me get unblocked. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to retract the offer, actually. See User talk: HurricaneTracker495#User: Lima Bean Farmer. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also say that I was very close to deciding on an indefinite block. I hope that you can learn from this, which is why I moved to a block with an expiry. Denial won't help your cause, especially as multiple CUs have found that it was confirmed sockpuppetry. Denial is also very likely to lead to your topic ban remaining in force indefinitely, as I can't see how such an appeal would be successful if you haven't owned up. It will be a benefit for you to be as honest as you can, regardless of whether you control both accounts. You may appeal this block, but as its an AE action, such an appeal would go to WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. Based on the confirmation and also the behavioral evidence too, I would not be undoing my action unless you own up to it. I am also very unlikely to accept an appeal of the block until 6 months has passed without any sockpuppetry. You may of course appeal at AN, AE or ARCA at any time, but such an appeal is from my experience unlikely to be accepted until some time has passed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk to me, is there anything I can do to make this better? If I am being honest, I am a good faith editor. I am not here to taunt other editors, to purposefully disrupt pages, or to vandalize. Neither am I here to push the limits on rules by making a bunch of sockpuppets or ignoring other editors. I genuinely want to be friendly with other editors and work constructively. On the other hand, I’m not trying to be some role model editor or admin or anything like that. I’m only human. Not saying anyone else isn’t (other than the bots), but I don’t have that much time to edit Wikipedia or be someone who does administrative work with the website itself. I attempted to do some editing on the 2020 elections which continually got me in trouble. I have been working on improving as an editor since the beginning. I add reliable sources, I recognize independent and secondary sources, I have helped resolve conflicts, and I have an idea on what does and doesn’t belong. It seems that you and various other editors have been fed up with me and will do whatever they can to prevent me from editing. Once again, I really am only interested in politics, I tried doing other things but they just got so boring after a while. Wikipedia is a hobby and politics are more of a passion. In addition, I haven’t ever added my personal politics into editing Wikipedia. I know that stating things that I didn’t do wrong may not be helping me, but it’s worth a shot at this point. My main focus has been to improve wikipedia on the subject I know (American politics) and learn how to become a better Wikipedia editor. If the wiki community no longer wants these services from me, I understand. Please let me know if there’s anything I can do, and I will genuinely do my best to make it up to you and the community, but if you think that I have no option (other than waiting 9 months and then indefinitely) to edit Wikipedia again, I will understand. Thank you for your time. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The block is for using an undisclosed alternate account to avoid a previous sanction. This needs to be addressed before any other issue, including how likely it is to reoccur if you were unblocked but still banned from American Politics. Also per Dreamy Jazz above, you'd be better off waiting quite a time before appealing, then drafting an appeal for AN or similar and hoping that community patience hasn't already run out. Unfortunately that's a possibility at this stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Euryalus. What would you suggest I do, just wait it out and reconsider in a month or so? I’m open to pretty much anything at this point just to make new constructive edits. I actually thought Wikipedia was a fun place, I just want some way to edit again under any condition. Thanks again. Your friend, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to start here: Did you use a sockpuppet account to evade a sanction? You've said no above, but there is reportedly clear evidence confirmed by more than one checkuser. I also think a month isn't going to cut it - Dreamy Jazz's suggestion seems a more realistic time frame. It's a shame that tha is so, but you really have racked up an impressive list of sanctions in a fairly short time! -- Euryalus (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, I know it seems that way. In addition, you have been very kind and patient with me. Dreamy Jazz has a 9 month block and an indefinite ban on me. To be completely truthful, an unblock wouldn’t really be very beneficial without an unban (although I’ll take it if offered). If I say that I am running both accounts, do you think that would help or hurt my case? Thank you again, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you clearly are, so I'd just be honest and say so.

You seem like a reasonable person but given the number of issues to date I'm wondering if en-WP editing is the right hobby for you. However, if you do want to keep at it I'd suggest finding something else to do for several months (italics for emphasis), and coming back with a detailed outline of how you understand policies and guidelines on verifiability, neutrality and sockpuppetry, plus what you'd like to edit and why it would be a benefit to en-WP's editing objectives to let you do so.

Be prepared for a fair bit of doubt on this front, and for a continued topic ban from American Politics as that's where the difficulties have been. And don't sockpuppet in the interim - even without checkuser evidence your editing patterns are fairly easy to detect. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Euryalus, you don’t think I’ll be able to edit American politics ever again? This was the only thing I was unclear of in your above statement. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it would be a hard sell to get the topic ban without evidence of collegiate and trouble-free editing in other areas, which you're not going to be able to amass while blocked. But that's just my opinion, actual appeal outcome will be up to the community at AE or AN. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Euryalus. You have been more helpful and patient with me than you had to be, which I greatly appreciate. Ok talk to me, I’m ready to make a deal. If I tell you everything, will you at least agree to hear my case and keep an open mind? I will be completely honest. Keeping an open mind on my ban is the only request I have in return. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dreamy Jazz, can you please agree to the condition? It’s the holidays and I want to know if I’ll ever be able to edit again. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, your approach here appears to be a category error. You seem to be attempting to negotiate a plea bargain or something, but this is not a cop show; and the only person you're punishing by not following the process is you (at least, assuming you want a chance at having your ban overturned). Note these errors in your reasoning:

No-one is likely to have their sympathy for you increased by your implying that they normally do not have an open mind. Yet that is the approach you have taken with DJ.
No-one wants to spend more time on your case than necessary, especially on the holidays. I.e. they are unlikely to want to agree to the condition or play other non-procedural games you might invent. Yet that is the approach you have taken with DJ.
The onus is, and has been ever since the sockpuppet investigation outcome, on you to follow the process if you want to have a chance of having your editing rights restored. Yet you are still avoiding this.

On Wikipedia, honesty is generally the best policy. I suggest that you take a break, reflect on the above, read the policies and guidelines and enjoy the holidays. If you decide at some point that you can follow the process, then do so and try to accept the outcome graciously. Zazpot (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your pings have not been working for me. Ensure that you link my userpage and also place your signature in the same edit. You can use {{ping|Dreamy Jazz}} to link my userpage.

I am perfectly happy to hear your case and also will keep an open mind. I would say that as its Christmas, I'll be leaving this till later. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dreamy Jazz:! I’ll tell you everything tomorrow. And, since it seems you celebrate it, have a Merry Christmas! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My block

Hello @Dreamy Jazz:Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions}! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC). Sorry I did not think that would publish, usually it shows a preview first. So yes, since no one will believe otherwise, I am the master of the “Just Piping In” account. And yes, I did know it was wrong and had known what sockpuppetry was before I created the new account. However, while I knew it was wrong, I did not create it with malicious intent. In fact, it was the opposite. I wanted to take what I had learned from my Lima Bean Farmer account and continue learning with the Just Piping In account and have a fresh start without all of the feuds I have had with the Lima Bean Farmer account. Once again, I know this was wrong, but if you look at my Just Piping In account, you will see that I took it as a fresh start. I have been more friendly to my fellow editors, I have been discussing more on talk pages, I have tried creating new pages (in a few cases successfully), I have been retreading rules so I stay out of trouble, I have edited less aggressively, I earned a barnstar in my first month, and I even reverted vandalism to a small extent. In addition, I made new redirect pages, added proper links to articles, paid closer attention to primary and reliable sources, and helped shorten long pages to the best of my ability without removing content. I understand the guidelines for wikipedia:SOCK, but if we just look at WP:IGNORE for a minute, the reason stated for a block in wp:NOPUNISH should not be to punish an editor. Through my alternate account, I showed competence and the skills required to edit American Politics. While I didn’t do this in the right way, it would still seem like a punishment to have an indefinite block as opposed to preventing harm. In addition, I did try editing other areas before I made an alternate account and it just didn’t work. It was like a doctor trying to run a bakery, it didn’t work out. If there is anything else that you would like to know or have any questions about unblocking/unbanning, please let me know. Thank you again for your time. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that you were topic banned for a reason. If we allowed all topic banned users to have fresh starts it would be an easy way for a problematic user to get back into the area they had problems in. I get that a topic ban stops you from both being problematic and also good in an area. However, using a sockpuppet is not the right way. It undermines the processes that the community has to prevent problematic editors from a topic area, and also shows that the person is ignoring the ban placed. If you had waited the full 3 months, till the 16th of January 2021, you would have been able to get back in to editing in the area without a restriction. As you decided to ignore that and went to start ban evading on the 4th of November, it is reasonable to say that you were fine with evading said ban. I get that your edits were not brought into question and that your editing using that account was helpful, but a ban is still a ban and it applies to any edit whether good or bad. Also using an alternative account abusively is disruptive and is a violation of policy. As other administrators noted above, you were lucky this block was not indefinite, as most ban evading using sockpuppets with a block log as long as yours is met with indefinite blocks. In regards to the ban being extended to indefinite, I considered the same points. I can promise you that my extension of the ban and the block were not made in punishment. They were there to prevent further disruptive behavior, which you showed through using a sockpuppet to evade your ban.

If you had been honest from the start, instead of now (several days later), I would have been more happy to reduce the length of your block and possibly even your ban. However, as you very clearly denied that you owned the Just Piping In account, it shows you have been dishonest. It is good that you are being honest now, as this will help with future appeals. The problem I have is that you have been dishonest for the last few days and have only changed now. How can I trust that you will continue on this line of good editing as you say above. If I could fully trust and be sure that you would no longer be disruptive, I would remove the block and remove my extension of the ban (which would then expire on the 16th, as I cannot undo another administrator's enforcement action). However, as I cannot be sure of that, the best way for the community and me to see that you won't be distruptive after a unblock or unban is for you to not evade your block and ban from now on. I am likely to accept an appeal of your block in around 6 months time, as long as you have not evaded your block. As noted above, you may appeal this to AN, AE or ARCA at any time. I would say from experience that the community would likely follow the same line of appeal in 6 months. For your ban, I think you should be prepared for it to stay for a while after any unblock. The unblock can be used by you to show you can edit constructively. I would say that 3 months after being unblocked and also editing, without violating your topic ban, is when I would definitely consider lifting the restrictions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz:, I appreciate your explanation. But I beg you to please remove your extended restrictions. Give me a one month block and ban and then you can have a check user assure you that I did not sock puppet in that time. Listen, I know that I wasn’t honest, but if I was, you probably would've blocked me indefinitely anyways. I really just wanted a fresh start with a new account but I realize (and did back then) that this was the wrong way to do so. I understand that I have not always been the best rule follower but I am only here to help the project and I believe that I can learn as I move forward. Please just give me another chance. I have an expertise in American politics so this is where I think I can really bring useful information to the project. When I couldn’t I was so stressed out that I created this other account to continue helping. I once again understand that it was the wrong thing to do, but I ask you to please just make one and exception for me and I promise to be nothing but a useful and learning user in the future. Or, could you at least give me only talk page access for the next six months? I’d take that or anything just to be able to help out. I will most likely not appeal to the community, as I have tried that before. Another reason I wanted the fresh start is because many fellow community members I have had feuds with in the past. I wanted to just put everything behind me and start over as the friendly, helpful, “Just Piping In”. I really want to work something out with you (other than an appeal in six months) and I really hope you’d be willing to. Thank you again for your time. I should add that I promise to be honest and follow policy to the fullest extent from now on. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to reduce the length of the ban or block now. However, I am prepared to unblock you and/or unban you from the topic area when you make appeal(s) at a later date. This distinction means that the reducing of the length of the block / ban would happen at the time of appeal at the later date and not now. As long as you don't evade the block and ban, this makes no difference to you. At the moment I would be happy with 6 months for the block and at least 9 months for the ban. Within reason I am happy to reduce this time. I would also note that this time is not set in stone and appeals to me before this time will be okay by me within reason. This time is my assessment of the earliest where I would grant an appeal without further issues. I understand that you consider the ban and block the same, as you are not interested in editing in other areas, but the time between a unban and unblock will allow you to demonstrate that you have learned. I think, based on your commitment, I would almost certainly accept an appeal of the block in 3 to 4 months from the 19th of December. For the ban, I really can't see me accepting an appeal for a while after your unblock. Editing constructively elsewhere when you are unblocked will help show you have learned, and so will help in an appeal of the ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz:, would you at least consider if I made a formal appeal just for an unblock and an unban in just talk space (kept the indefinite ban on main space for 3 or 6 or however many months it needs to take for you to see the improvement). Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of unblock, I may consider allowing you to edit in the talk space of articles relating to the topic ban as a way to show you can be constructive in the area. However, I would only be prepared to partially lift the restrictions in a few months, and such a topic ban would remain indefinite for the time being. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, such a partial lifting will need to be at least after the 16th of January so that the 3 month topic ban expires. However, such a partial lifting really should be a good time later. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz:, I can’t even tell you how thankful I am right now. Keep an eye out for me pinging you in a month (or a little later). Once again, thank you so much for taking this time. Now, get back to improving Wikipedia! I wouldn’t want to take away a minute more than needs to be. And Happy new year! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just testing out some things for when I get unblocked

MI-11 Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing, LBF? You should not edit Wikipedia at all until you make another unblock request, which may or may not be accepted, or, failing that, when your block expires. If and when you are able to edit again (whether because you chose to wait it out, or because you made a successful appeal) you will still be banned from American politics, so I can't see any possible valid reason for you to "test" linking to various American politics related articles from here. Especially since you know very well how internal links work – you have been using them before. It does seem like you are testing the limits of what you are allowed to do, not the functionality of the Wikipedia softweare. Is that correct? If so, please stop. If you are in fact testing how the Wiki markup works, don't do it with American politics articles, and preferrably do it without saving your changes ("Show preview" will tell you if your markup works.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would echo the comments made above by bonadea. Although I don't think the talk page of a blocked user should be used for only unblock requests or related discussions, you shouldn't really need to be editing your talk page unless you are making an appeal. Furthermore, you shouldn't be linking to pages which are covered under your topic ban. If you are testing linking to redirects and disambiguation pages, then I strongly suggest linking something else than American politics. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bonadea: and @Dreamy Jazz:, I am preparing edits for when I no longer am banned/blocked. I am doing this so that if I get limited access or only talk page access in a month, I can show Dreamy Jazz that I am a productive editor. However, since I am both blocked and banned, and I am not using any sock puppets, I have to use my talk page to test out a few links before suggesting any edits in a month. Once again, I really only know about politics, so whether I get full access or only talk page access to political articles, it won’t be until then that I will be able to edit regularly again. In addition, I am not attempting to break any rules or push the limit here as Bonadea said. I’m just figuring out a few links (see which ones redirect) to help me prepare for an appeal. Please understand, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lima Bean Farmer, I admire your enthusiasm, I really do. And I'm pleased to see you have come to an arrangement with User:Dreamy Jazz (which I support). But your ban from American topics extends to all pages, including your talk page. So simply *stop* until you reach the agreed point for making an appeal. You do not *have to* make test edits here (or anywhere), what you *have to* do is totally stop making all edits (test or otherwise) on the subject of American politics (and that includes testing links to American politics topics). If I see any more, I will remove your ability to edit this page - and I'll be doing it to help you, as others are less forgiving than Dreamy Jazz and I. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boing! said Zebedee:, I truly appreciate it. I will not make any more edits to my talk page. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Boing! said Zebedee:, it seems that based on your talk page that you have COVID-19 and also experiencing some of the symptoms. I am glad to see that you are still feeling well enough to occasionally edit and I hope that you feel better soon! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Lima Bean Farmer, that's very kind of you. I'm definitely feeling a bit better yesterday and today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Boing! said Zebedee:, of course. I am glad to hear and I wish you all the best. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hello @Mike Peel:! A bot names pi not pinged me recently over the articles I created (43 alumni for Biden and Right Side PAC). I am indefinitely blocked so I can’t inquire on your talk page or anywhere else. I was just curious as to why I was pinged. If you can explain, that would be great. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely Pi bot created new Wikidata items linked to the articles you created (it's doing a big batch of those this weekend). You can turn this off in preferences -> notifications -> "Connection with Wikidata" if you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel:, thank you for getting back to me. What are wiki items? I am still inexperienced on the technical aspect of Wikipedia. Once again, thank you for your response! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata, structured data about the thing/concept that the article is about. Click on 'Wikidata item' in the left-hand sidebar from any article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

You've been warned, over and over. I have now revoked your talk page access. You may request that it be reinstated, no sooner than six months from today, via WP:UTRS. That would be 2021-07-17. I hope this helps you with the "they clearly can't stay away" part of your block, which you have continued to violate even while blocked. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that you (Lima Bean Farmer) should have not mentioned the articles in the section above. They are related to American politics, and by mentioning them you violated your topic ban again. You were warned by Boing! said Zebedee that you should totally stop making all edits (test or otherwise) on the subject of American politics ... [otherwise] I will remove your ability to edit this page. As a consequence, Yamla has removed your talk page access.

My trust that you won't be violating your topic ban has gone, and so I support Yamla's talk page access removal. I also won't be ready to undo the block for 6 months. I'm also not really happy with allowing your topic ban to be removed. I think it will need to stay for the foreseeable future. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS 46271

UTRS appeal #46271 declined. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]