User talk:Its Lido

August 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Utopia of the Seas have 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.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Utopia of the Seas was changed by OfficiaILido (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.96637 on 2025-08-26T20:20:28+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Glasses. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Glasses was changed by OfficiaILido (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.941309 on 2025-08-26T20:47:43+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Utopia of the Seas. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on MS Freedom of the Seas

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page MS Freedom of the Seas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, OfficiaILido, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try 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. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rosiestep (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really

Toilet cleaning really, I don't think Wikipedia is that hard up:) Jp33442 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must be a lot of fun at parties. All jokes aside its an exageration! OfficiaILido (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know still found it funny thats all. Jp33442 (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lol OfficiaILido (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "OfficiaILido", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it comes across as a role account or possibly an organizational account, both of which are prohibited on Wikipedia. It is concerning that you slapped the heading "Official" on your own comment, when you have no actual official capacity here. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Informing you of this, but your name is not part of the report - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ogaboga69

I just wanted to comment on it; it perfectly fine to go to WP:AIV even if you are involved in being harassed, and you should do so swiftly. You have Twinkle, which makes it easy to do so. I would also suggest WP:ANI if the editor violating WP:NPA has been constructive in the past, but either one works. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hello, OfficiaILido,

I saw on your User page where you state you want to help other editors. While that is an awesome goal to have, it is far too soon for you to be experienced enough to help other editors. You have only had this account for a week and have made only 38 edits so far. So, your focus right now should be on gaining more editing experience and knowledge about how Wikipedia operates, along with its many policies and guidelines. Maybe if you become a regular editor, you will know enough to be helpful to new editors in a few months but as for now, you shouldn't be handing out advice as you are just a newbie yourself.

If you have questions about editing here, please bring them to the Teahouse. It's a great place for new editors like yourself can go and get advice and support from more experienced editors. It really helped me when I was first starting out back in 2013 and I'm sure that it can be for you, too. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in this edit to Ogaboga69, all of your information here was incorrect. Twinkle isn't used to make reports to ANI and "investigative reports", whatever those are, are not reviewed by a WMF steward. And it is very uncommon for a blocked editor's IP to be globally blocked across all Wikimedia projects unless they are a LTA sockpuppet. I can see that, in your way, you were trying to help Ogaboga69 but your advice to them was not based in actual practices on the English Wikipedia. Please refrain from counseling editors who are on the verge of getting blocked until you are more familiar with the processes here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi Its Lido. I appreciate your desire to introduce new editors to the project, sending welcome messages on their talk pages. However, the vast majority (around 80%) are just user-talk edits. This gives the impression of WP:PGAMEing happening. For anti-vandalism work, the counter-vandalism unit has instructions on what to do. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am truely sorry I am fairly new here myself and I was just trying to use Twinkle to make Wikipedians like me stay longer. If you can please state what I am doing wrong. Its Lido (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there isn't anything objectively wrong with what you are doing, and again being nice to new editors is a good thing. My personal concern is just over a perceived WP:PGAMEing, which is when many trivial or non-constructive edits are made in order to gain autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed permissions. I wouldn't suggest to stop doing it necessarily, just perhaps do some other editing in between, specifically in regards to anti-vandalism, which you have expressed an interest in. Also, if you are doing these edits to gain extended-confirmed permissions, please don't. Extended confirmed protection (which to my knowledge is the only thing extended confirmed actually does) isn't perfect, but its designed to attempt to create an automated method where by less experienced editors won't be able to enter certain articles, in order to prevent disruption.

Though honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the best solution is. If you are willing to do so, perhaps a limit of sending welcome messsages to accounts with at least one edit? A fair number of people have accounts but have no intention of actually editing. Or, getting more experience in editing would also make it clear you aren't just attempting to permission-game. Happy editing (and apologies for the block of text!) :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend welcoming editors who have made constructive edits rather than welcoming accounts with zero edits or unconstructive ones. Welcoming is fine, encouraged even, but you should be discerning with who you do welcome. jellyfish ✉ 22:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spawnism (2nd draft) (September 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Spawnism, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please use the specified draft above. There really is no need to iterate multiple drafts about the same topic.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spawnism (2nd draft) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Its Lido! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Its Lido! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Issue With Twinkle., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Spawn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Spawn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spawn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

λ NegativeMP1 18:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Spawn

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.

A tag has been placed on The Spawn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

As part of the Welcoming Committee, I would like to remind you that we do not welcome editors with zero edits with templates. Kinda pointless when they do not engage with Wikipedia in the first place. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Utopia of the Seas, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pr0m37h3u$ 10:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Admin abuse, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Donald Albury 01:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spawnism (The Spawn), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spawn. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hello, Its Lido,

If you want to change the target article of a Redirect page, please take it to WP:RFD and make a proposal. Several of your changes led to broken redirects where the redirect points to a nonexistent page and that can result in a page deletion so they have been undone. If you want to make a significant change, take it to RFD where the change can be discussed.

If you have questions about editing policies or practices on this project, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the page got deleted. Its Lido (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:SpawnpointRBX.jpeg

The file File:SpawnpointRBX.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article this image was used in was deleted and I can't see another use for this file except for vandalism.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro how is it used for vandalism Its Lido (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Victory Martial Arts

The article Victory Martial Arts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only the kens5.com source could conceivably contribute to notability, and even that's questionable. There are likely no other sources which are both secondary and sigcov.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Victory Martial Arts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Victory Martial Arts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory Martial Arts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TheAlienAdventures (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on user talk pages

Hi, It's Lido,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your enthusiasm for contributing and engaging with other users. However, while they were most likely in good faith, I noticed that some of your recent edits on user talk pages, such as your comment on User talk:Humanity Network in Uganda suggesting that you could create a page for them, may not align with Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly WP:HOST and WP:SOAP. Offering to create pages for others or providing advice as a new editor can sometimes come across as promotional or outside standard practices.

As a relatively new editor, I recommend focusing on simpler tasks to build your experience, such as making basic copyedits (e.g., fixing typos, grammar, or formatting) or exploring tasks listed in the Task Centre. Tools like Twinkle are great but can be complex for new users, so starting with straightforward edits might be a good way to get familiar with Wikipedia’s policies.

If you have any questions or need guidance, feel free to ask me or visit the Teahouse for support from the community. Keep up the good work, and happy editing!

Best regards,

Pr0m37h3u$ 11:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Admin abuse

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Admin abuse, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. – Frood (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock

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).

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

Request reason:

I opened up a checkuser investigation and then 5 minutes later I get slapped with a block I do not understand this, who am I socking of? Its Lido (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A 3 month block is generous. I suggest waiting it out. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 28 September 2025 (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.

Its Lido (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also @AmandaNp

We need to talk

@AmandaNP We need to talk about why i was falsely blocked. Its Lido (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the block log states, WP:GHBH, aka don't log out and vandalize. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how did i vandalize i use a proxy so please send me checkuser proof to itslido_wiki@proton.me Its Lido (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works - I'm not going to give you tools on how to further evade scruitiny, and actually to add to that, I can connect you to User:Batmanateme. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sadly do not have knowledge of that user so when and where are you finding that connection from. Also what "scrutiny" have I been under? Its Lido (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the future I will take steps to prevent connections like these happening. Its Lido (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP I don't know what this is all about. Its Lido (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that might help is to avoid accessing Wikipedia via a proxy that is shared by miscreants who also may be using it.

@AmandaNP: you may want to submit the proxy IP address to WP:OPP to check if it's an open proxy, which are not permitted for access to Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Thanks, but I can't step out of the CU policy to do so, and I have enough knowledge and tools to check what I'm looking at. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas may I be unblocked? Its Lido (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP Its Lido (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you say you will take steps to further prevent the connections concerns me more. But my decision was made with your block, other admins/CUs will review your appeal. Please stop pinging me. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of why you are getting this connection because I do not own that account Its Lido (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep I know your my mentor so may you please help me I am currently in a situation and currently have a request currently awaiting reviewal for unblockage I was blocked by @AmandaNP on Sunday! Its Lido (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to interfere with what's happening here. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I am just unsure what to do. @Rosiestep Its Lido (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want a SPI reviewal case due to I have no knowledge of User:Batmanateme and I am assuming it’s because I use an open proxy. If I somehow did something else wrong I am truly sorry! :D Its Lido (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, really, this was very generous. Wait it out. asilvering (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2025 (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.

Its Lido (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Block

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).

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

Request reason:

I have read over Wikipedias guidelines and I would like to follow the rules of Wikipedia and furthermore use one personal IP and be transparent on all the accounts I use!

Decline reason:

This unblock request is essentially content-free. Please read WP:GAB and then write an unblock request that directly addresses the concerns. Yamla (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2025 (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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear, Sir/Ma’am

I have read over Wikipedia’s guidelines on sockpuppetry and if I am unblock I promise to be transparent and not abuse multiple accounts in any form. I understand the decision of blocking me, but it is in my best interests to create good faith edits on this account. If I am not unblocked I understand the decision and I will wait it out, however I apologize for everything and I do admit that I abused even after my block but it has now came to me that what I did was wrong!

Decline reason:

I suggest waiting 6 months, then making an unblock request to WP:UTRS. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2025 (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.

Thank you for your transparency. I don't recall ever before seeing a temporary block on someone who has abused multiple accounts. The block is always indefinite, without an expiration time. This is the first time I've seen a temporary block. As you have been told, three months is generous. Consider yourself fortunate. Best to wait it out.

Please know that if you pester admins with too many unblock requests after having been told to wait it out, your block might be changed so it doesn't expire, and/or your access to this talk page may be revoked.

I'd be more inclined to unblock if you disclosed the IP address range of the proxy service you're using, so we could block the proxy, but I would neither expect nor require you to reveal that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you it Its Lido (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist So will my block be reviewed? Its Lido (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient; administrators are volunteers. If you continue to pester administrators after being asked not to you are likely to have talk page access revoked. CoconutOctopus talk 13:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: I also see Mayormcbeets (confirmed) and TheDKShow (at least very likely). Any objections to me bumping the block to indefinite? --Blablubbs (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious: Is everyone who uses a proxy to access Wikipedia going to appear as the same user to the checkuser tools? I ask because I was once blocked as a sockpuppet for this reason on another website on which I had one account, because I accessed it through the Opera browser's built-in proxy. It took a year for the admins to figure this out and unblock me.

If that's the case here, it would be more efficient to block the proxy IP address long-term.

If there are multiple accounts created by this user, I think we should give this user a chance to come clean and name all sockpuppet accounts created, which was not quite done in the appeal above. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Generally speaking, no. Having a lot of people sharing an IP – anonymiser or otherwise – certainly has some potential for false positives, but CUs are generally cognizant of that and adjust their results accordingly; we also see more than just IPs. Perhaps more relevantly, the connection I mention above wasn't on a proxy IP, and this also supports this being more than spurious IP overlap. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs @AmandaNP @Anachronist @Rosiestep - Thanks for the messages and notices on my talk page however I would like another chance on Wikipedia if possible, without a permanent block! Its Lido (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I checked and @TheDkshow is locked and blocked years ago long before I joined Wikipedia or any of my alt’s Its Lido (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do admit Mayormcbeets is my account batmanateme and TheDKShow are not Its Lido (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I tagged myself basically Its Lido (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yes I know I just dog my hole deeper Its Lido (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What positive contributions do you believe you have made? What possible reason is there to unblock you at this point? I'm not asking what you plan to do. You've abused multiple accounts that have been blocked because you are disruptive. Do you think you actually made edits that made Wikipedia better? --Onorem (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs @Anachronist the proxy User talk:2600:387:0:0:0:0:0:0/43 I use is already blocked and as well as my 2nd proxy which I don’t use as it’s globally blocked and that one is 2A09:BAC2:8000:0:0:0:0:0/34‬ blocked by L235 and range 2A09:BAC2:0:0:0:0:0:0/32‬ blocked by Amanda np one in Orlando and one in Utah Its Lido (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Onorem I also try to make good faith edits and I will never abuse an account again. I would even suggest creating articles here if that’s possible. Its Lido (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit...and that's not what I asked. What positive contributions have you made? Please link the edits you have made that you actually believe made Wikipedia better. I can't believe you still have access to your talk page at this point. --Onorem (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I want to make good edits and also I hate to say this but lets not cuss Its Lido (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also why don’t you want me to be able to talk here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Album&diff=prev&oldid=131192472 Its Lido (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also made two new articles like come on it’s a good start off also WP:DNB Its Lido (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have created three articles, all of which have been deleted. Please list some edits you have made to existing articles that you believe improved the articles. Be specific and detailed. Donald Albury 00:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, @Donald Albury

I am extremely sorry about how I acted on Wikipedia and while I have not made very significant edits yet as I am fairly new one I could name is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamas&diff=prev&oldid=1313866456 Its Lido (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You created a redirect from a plural form of a tool, but called it a weapon instead of a tool? That's the best you can do to show how you have been productive. Please take a few months off before thinking about requesting another unblock. --Onorem (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, Lido has openly admitted to using Wikipedia as an advocacy platform, and when the article he made was being actively discussed for deletion, he debated about moving the article to a different title. As a non-administrator I'm not sure how relevant my comments here are but for what it's worth I'm yet another editor that has been concerned with their editing and competency. λ NegativeMP1 02:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Its Lido subsequently used another account after the block in order to make the same kind of edits as before, showing no acknowledgment of their wrongdoing etc.

This account has now been blocked as a sock.

Pr0m37h3u$ 14:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: Go for it, never any objection to make them stronger with cause. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Catagory Idea

I know I can’t exactly do much while blocked but just as a quick suggestion what if there was a wiki project for writing about Wikipedia editors and there should also be in the notability requirements anyone in a high wikimedia position of power for example wmf staff, trustees, or stewards should automatically be relevant enough to have articles written on them. Once again this is just a suggestion as I am currently blocked and I do not plan to Sockpuppet ever again so I am opening up to give decent suggestions. Its Lido (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have articles on Wikimedia staff and Wikipedia editors if they meet notability requirements. There is no automatic presumption of notability based on your stature in a company. There are CEOs of large companies who aren't notable. We also have Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff, as well as Category:Wikimedians, which lists articles on some notable members. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Donald Albury 12:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

This should cheer you up after the harsh blocks put on you. Some may not appreciate your contributions, but I do, and I will congratulate that. I saw your contributions outshine and support the encyclopedia. See you soon (if you ever come back)!

~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 04:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Its Lido if you see this and can't respond, you can email me at Special:EmailUser/Rafaelthegreat. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaelthegreat why? —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi why not? Just wanted to see if they are here... ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rulebreaker broke rules. Do we continue to beat their head in or do we give them a picture of a cute kitten and well wishes before continuing disciplinary action? Seems altruistic to me. — rae^5e <talk> 03:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Some may not appreciate your contributions, but I do, and I will congratulate that." - not trying to read in too much but this may come off as a criticism to those made block

Pr0m37h3u$ 14:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

Noting my CU- Confirmed block of May The Swartz.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]