User talk:Editedit446

I understand that I have been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. While I genuinely believed my edits were constructive and supported by reliable sources, I now realize that I may have misunderstood how important it is to engage with the community, build consensus, and follow the collaborative spirit that Wikipedia is based on. It honestly makes me sad to be blocked from contributing, because I care about the accuracy and quality of the content. I never intended to be disruptive or to go against community norms. If my edits caused trouble, I truly regret it. I now see that contributing to Wikipedia is not just about adding information, but doing so in a way that respects process, discussion, and the work of others. I am asking for a second chance. I'm willing to take more time to understand the policies better, to use talk pages more often, and to be more careful and collaborative in everything I do here. Please consider unblocking me, or even applying a temporary or partial unblock so I can prove that I can contribute constructively. Thank you for reading this and for the work you do keeping Wikipedia reliable and fair.

According to gptzero.me, this unblock request was written by an AI. On top of that, I see you blanked (thereby acknowledging you had read and understood) multiple warnings on this page. The combination of the two clearly indicates you should remain blocked. Yamla (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Honestly, I was really sad when I saw I’d been blocked, I truly never tried to go against the community rules or make things harder for anyone. If the things I added caused confusion or problems, I’m truly sorry because it wasn’t my intention.

Whenever I made edits, I just tried to follow what I saw on other Wikipedia pages. Like when in The Lifetimes Tour page I added a section for surprise songs, I did it like how it’s done on The Eras Tour, using a table format. I really thought it fit and would be helpful. But I get now that it wasn’t received that way. If it came across as disruptive, that’s my fault and I take responsibility. I wasn’t trying to overstep I guess I just didn’t realize how it might come across to others. Like this, there are other cases, as the page Radical Optimism Tour where I added references for opening acts (trying to be more reliable) and wrote the announcement on the "background" section where all the announcements are posted. Then my edit was seem as disruptive. It wasn’t my intention.

Since being blocked, I’ve taken time to read the guidelines properly and reflect on how I approach editing. I’m going to be more careful from now on especially on pages where there are already active editors. I really hope I can have a second chance.

Finally, I just hope this doesn’t seem AI generated, like the last admin thought.

Thank you! Editedit446 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, have another try at this, and please be sure to communicate with other editors. Happy editing! asilvering (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page . If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]