User talk:PistacchioY

October 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nam phrik have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of Thai desserts and snacks, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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.
Hello PistacchioY, it appears that you have added a few irrelevant and/or redundant categories to various Wikipedia articles. Would you please avoid these errors in the future.

In addition to categorization issues, please refrain from marking edits as "minor" when adding content to any Wikipedia article, this flag is reserved for actual minor changes such as a spelling correction. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing pattern is highly suspicious and your edits have been disruptive. Graham87 (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

The edits were strictly in good faith, I've maintained citations, sources and validated edits across pages. Please go through once more, you won't come across any erroneous edits. I understand that admins believe a certain edit is not needed at all. If you don't need it, it's open to reverts in a case of difference of opinion. A permanent edit block should not be misused as a remedy against opinion difference for over 1 single edited section. As a user, it's impossible to presume what the admin considers as disruptive. I've made constructive edits to contribute to the system and a permanent block doesn't validate that all my edits and disruptive PistacchioY (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a "permanent block" suggesting it will never be removed, it is a indefinite block, meaning only that it has no specific end date and will last until you convince an admin to remove it. This isn't about one specific edit(though the one you speak of was the trigger for the block) but a pattern of disruption, which you don't address here. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2024 (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.