Hello, Scout MLG, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:180.95.25.69, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((help me)) on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! A Great Catholic Person (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, User:180.95.25.69, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I wanted to let you know I reverted your edits on various body armor and helmet articles because they were unsourced. If you have a source feel free to re-add them. Thanks. Garuda28 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

does iotv vest part of iba vest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout MLG (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is a source that directly says that it is part of the interceptor body armor yes, if there is not, then no. Garuda28 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose making over 100+ consecutive, silly, nothing edits (like adding and removing a period over and over, dozens of times), is one way to jack up your edit count and get to extended confirmed user status. Happy editing! - ^theWOLFchild 05:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Reply[reply]

I've removed the extended confirmed flag due to this gaming. Do not inflate your edit count with meaningless edits. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry about that - Scout MLG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout MLG (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those edit was accident, when can i have my extended confirmed user status back? ~ Scout MLG 15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just a guess, but I would think you might be able to regain that status after you make 100+ legitimate, worthwhile edits that actually contribute to the building and/or maintaining of this project. That would negate the 100+ silly edits you made while trying to game the system, and show you to be a worthwhile contributor deserving of that status. But like I said, it's just a guess. You should probably asked the admin that stripped you of that status. (Oh, and you don't need to add all those templates to create your sig, just four tildes (~~~~) FYI) - ^theWOLFchild 03:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think i may have now about 100 legit edit, can i have my extended confirmed user status back? ~ Scout MLG 15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have approx 60+ edits since you lost that right, but now you have another problem. How can anyone tell what kind of edits you've made? You've never left a single edit summary, and even though many of your edits appear to have made significant changes (per the +/- amount of data), you have marked nearly all them as "minor" (m), which is a clear abuse of the edit summary feature. In other words, more gaming of the system and clearly not editing in good faith. The way you're going, you're more likely to get blocked than get any additional permissions or privileges. Why don't you just try following the rules and contributing more effectively and collaboratively, instead of cheating and making work for others? Just a thought... - ^theWOLFchild 01:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I m very sorry about that~ Scout MLG 15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you even marked this last edit, the reply with the apology, as "minor" (m)... it seems it has become a habit you need to break. Anyway, I'm sure your apology won't go unnoticed, (let's not call it an apology to me, but to the community). Try to work on adding actual comments in the edit summary window, that briefly describe the edit you made (changes, comments, etc). Edit summaries are more important for article edits than talk page edits (as the talk page post is usually self-explanatory). But only use "minor" for very small changes, like adding a missing comma or fixing spacing. I would suggest not using "minor" at all to begin with, but add a summary for everything, to get in the habit.

Also, don't try and add as many edits as you can as soon as you can, just to try and get back to extended confirmed. Don't think about that for awhile and instead just focus of making good, worthwhile, productive edits where they are actually needed. Join some projects that align with your interests, enagage with othe editors on various talk pages, check recent changes and help fight vandalism. In short... do good work. Before you know it, you'll likely get ext/conf back and perhaps some other tools like Pending Changes Reviewer or even Rollbacker. Anyway, these are just suggestions, take them as you will.

Last couple things, please learn to indent your thread comments and sign your posts. Again, you don't need all those templates after your comment, just add four (4) of the the "squiggly looking" dashs, called "tildes" (- ^theWOLFchild 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)) after your comment so, for example, it looks like this;Reply[reply]

(example posts only, start)

• I m very sorry about that ~~~~

after you save the page, the four tildes disappear and your username and the date and time are automatically added. If will the look like this

• I m very sorry about that Scout MLG (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(example posts only, end)

Like I said, this is all just advice. Hopefully you get some benefit from it. - ^theWOLFchild 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as since my extended confirmed status had been taken, does that means I would be never have my extended confirmed status back? Scout MLG (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed all your edits on old Japanese and Chinese weapons, we need sources on the info to be proven true. Thanks. TasticalHic (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about sourcing. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i dont know how to source? Scout MLG (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This link explains sourcing. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i also want know how to spot vandalism? Scout MLG (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism is any edit that was made with the intent of adding false information, removing true information, adding nonsense or stupidity, or any other attempt to cause a problem, here is a link to an edit filter [1] the yellow edits could be vandalism, something is likely wrong with the orange edits, and the redder an edit looks the worse it is likely to be, click "diff" of a suspect edit, and if it is bad click undo. I do alot of vandalism romoval so feel free to ask me any questions about this. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These [2] [3] are examples of vandalism Tornado chaser (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but what happen if those vandalize user want start edit war with me, what should i do? Scout MLG (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If your absolutely sure it was vandalism (profanity randomly stuck in articles, "he is gay" with no references in an article about a person (or he is a space alien, and similar nonsense), ect) you are allowed to edit war, and you should warn the vandal on their talk page, and if they keep doing it, report them at WP:AIV. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you undo vandalism, you should warn the user that their edit wasn't helpful by placing this text on the bottom of their talk page ((subst:Uw-vandalism1)) ~~~~ , for a level 1 warning, or, if you are sure they are being problem on purpose, a level 2 warning: ((subst:Uw-vandalism2)) ~~~~

Really bad obvious vandalism, or continued vandalism after a level 2 warning deserves a level 3 warning: ((subst:Uw-vandalism3)) ~~~~

Vandalism after a level 3 warning gets a level 4 warning, ((subst:Uw-vandalism4)) ~~~~

If the vandal keeps up after level 4, report them at WP:AIV, so an admin can block them. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG, I see from your talk page here that even though many of your edits have been problematic, you do seem to genuinely want to contribute here. You appear to be struggling with some of the editing guidelines here, but don't feel bad about that, there are a lot of rules and it takes awhile to learn your way around. I would suggest you look into the Wikipedia Mentorship Program. You could pair up with an experienced editor who will help guide you along until you can edit satisfactorily on your own. Go to the page linked above and do some reading about it, see if maybe you would like to give this option a try. I have seen other editors in your position go this route and they went on to become established and proficient editors themselves, instead of just continuing on the way they were and getting blocked. Good luck to you. - ^theWOLFchild 03:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For more information on this, also check out the Wikipedia Adopt-a-User Program. You will also find a list of editors that may be willing to help you >here<. Give these pages a look. You might just find the help you are looking for. Again, good luck - ^theWOLFchild 05:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

follow up

Hi Scout MLG, I see you posted a userbox on your page requesting to be 'adopted'. Pursuing this is a move in the right direction. I was wondering, however, have you been in contact with anyone about this yet? If so, then carry on, I hope it works out. But if not, you may need to be proactive about this. There is a list of editors who are adopters, and if you check the list out, you will see which ones are currently seeking to take on adoptees, what their editing interests are, experience, etc. Perhaps take a look at the list and contact one of the available ones, either on their talk page, or by email (if that is enabled) and hopefully get something started. The list is (link→ here ←link). Good luck - ^theWOLFchild 23:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use the ((help me)) template appropriately. The ((help me)) template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code ((help me-inappropriate)) on this page with ((help me)) to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

Scout MLG (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scout MLG: Hey there! We received your request for help, but there was no question asked. When you use the ((help me)) template, but sure and accompany it with a question. Thanks! Operator873^talkconnect 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This here is a perfect example of why I suggested this user seek a mentor, in the section directly above. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 05:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't make edits like this[4] where you add something without saying why. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because i sudden saw something they said USMC has retired M16A2 on M16 rifle page. Scout MLG (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You still need to use an edit summary to explain why you are making the edit. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you warned a user not to blank pages[5], but the page they blanked was a draft page they had made, it is ok to blank drafts that you made yourself, blanking drafts does not merit a blanking warning. As always, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

because i didn’t find any source so I don’t know how can I do?Scout MLG (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also saw in page that said US army has completely retired Desert Camouflage Uniform in 2008 Scout MLG (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a question about an article, it would be better to post it on the article's talk page instead of here. Also, if you need help, try the Help Desk. - wolf 05:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this sooner, do you mean you don't know how to put references in an article or that you are not aware of a source for the info? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Scout MLG. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Scout MLG, and thanks for your efforts at User talk:Dude Master 2. A couple of things though: normally after a warning template is given, we don't add additional warnings unless the editor makes another problematic edit. I this case, the user has made only good edits since the last warning. Secondly, I think what this user is doing is not properly considered "vandalism", because it's not maliciously and intentionally damaging Wikipedia, but rather "disruptive editing". I've tried to explain what I mean in a comment I just left there. I'm also guilty of using a template with the word "vandalism", which I've now changed. Anyway, don't worry about it, but would you consider please undoing or removing the extra vandalism warning templates you left there? I think the existing ones are sufficient. We don't want to be overly harsh or bite this person who, although they have been causing some significant problems, seems to be honestly trying to improve Wikipedia in their own way. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay,sorry about thatScout MLG (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. So, do you think you could remove those templates? If so, just go to the page's history here, find your edit, and click "undo". Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just removed my message on his talk pageScout MLG (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as since my extended confirmed status had been taken, does that means I would be never have my extended confirmed status back? Scout MLG (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MAS 78. Since you had some involvement with the MAS 78 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not understand this edit. Could you explain it ? The Beretta BM 59 is not mentionned in the reference you gave.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Official Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on FBOI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on U . S . requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Scout MLG, I noticed that you have been continuing to place bogus vandalism warnings on some user talk pages. I have already spoken to you about this above at § Dude Master 2 warnings. Some of your warnings are correct, and the contribution is appreciated. But some of them are not correct. As I explained, after a user is given a warning, we don't give them another warning unless they vandalize again. For example at User talk:Angryamerican66, you added two more vandalism warnings, after they had already been warned by another editor, even though they had made only one edit.

Vandalism warnings should also be given in the proper order, starting with level-1 and going to level-4. If the user vandalizes again after a level-4 warning, they should be reported to WP:AIV. That's also another reason we don't give multiple warnings for the same edit. At User talk:Camdogtheman87 for example, you jumped directly to a level-3 warning.

Also, it's important to know the difference between what is WP:VANDALISM and what isn't. Advertising and promotion is not considered "vandalism". I removed your warning here Special:Diff/886450815/prev for that reason. Please try to be more careful about using vandalism warning templates. Misuse of vandalism warnings can cause problems for you... I'm also concerned about you being overly harsh with people who are genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia, but may not understand the rules. For example, at Special:Diff/883432564, you left a strongly-worded edit warring template for an inexperienced user who had only made one single revert; this is not edit warring. Please see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I have changed the page to what I think is a more appropriate response.

One more thing, if you are reverting an edit that is blatant and obvious vandalism (i.e., someone intentionally trying to deface or damage Wikipedia, just for the fun of it), you don't need to use an edit summary, or you can use a simple one like "rvv" (reverted vandalism). You should try to ignore and avoid interacting with vandals, and not use edit summaries like "stop it", "no", "get some help", etc., see WP:RBI. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sorth Vietnamese Military requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Uw-accessdate4 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Uw-accessdate3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Test8 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Account holds, restrictions, and suspensions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Canuck Government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Yankee Government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aussie Government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Canuck English requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do a lot of vandalism removal, if you have any questions about how to deal with vandalism (or anything else) feel free to ask me. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on U . S requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also just created U . S . Which was deleted, and now you create this, which could be considered Gaming The System. And you also created a bunch of other needless re-directs which have been deleted. Earlier I had suggested you seek mentorship, since then you were taken to ANI for among other things, WP:CIR issues. Admins were considering a block until Tornado Chaser agreed to "keep an eye on you". I would suggest you check in with TC regularly for guidance, especially before any more page creations, and perhaps focus on vandal-fighting. You don't want to end up at ANI again. Just friendly advice. - wolf 01:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on ARSE (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. IamNotU (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG, despite the advice above from Thewolfchild, I see you've continued to create dozens of new redirect pages. I don't have time to go through them all, but I tagged this one for deletion, because it's just not necessary. Nobody is ever going to search for or link to this term. The term "ARSE" by itself is already redirected to the disambiguation page, which is helpful, but what you've done is not. I also see that instead of realizing from my deletion tag that you've made a mistake, or asking for advice if you're not sure, you decided to contest the deletion... I would strongly suggest that if someone reverts something you've done, or asks you to stop doing something, that you stop and ask for help, instead of just continuing what you're doing!

I do see that you've made some good and helpful contributions in anti-vandalism and so on, and you've improved over the past half a year or so. Everyone makes mistakes, and I would prefer that you stayed on as a productive user but... there are limits. Tornado chaser, you said you could keep an eye on Scout MLG, do you actually have time for that? I feel like someone needs to regularly go through the edit history with them and check for mistakes like this one and half a dozen others I can see at first glance (misidentification of vandalism vs. unsourced, incorrect use of templates, etc.) If not, maybe you could help them find another mentor who could take over? Otherwise I think we'd probably be looking again at blocking the account pretty soon... --IamNotU (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IamNotU:, hi, does also include Topic ban? Scout MLG (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IamNotU:, but, is i get blocked or banned that make harder to sucess in RFA to became admin. Scout MLG (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG, please do not ever re-write someone's comment, like you did to mine here: [6] !! It might be that it's decided to place some restrictions on your account, instead of a full block, I don't know, it's up to the admins, not me. Yes, being indefinitely blocked or banned would make it harder for you to become an admin, since you would not be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all... The others have been kind in pointing out how you can learn about what is necessary for someone to become an admin. But I'm afraid they've given you false hope, and to be honest, I think there is little or no chance of that happening for you within the next ten years. You're right on the edge of being kicked out of Wikipedia because you're having too much difficulty following the rules, and you're asking about becoming an admin? It's like someone who is about to be fired from their job cleaning offices, and is asking if that might hurt their chances of becoming president of the company... Forget about that, and concentrate on what you can do to improve things enough so that you can still be allowed even to edit. I don't want to be mean, and it's clear that you are trying to be helpful, but that's the way I see things. --IamNotU (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sorry, but... Wow. Out of everything going on here and you're only concern is how this will affect your prospects of becoming an admin? This just came up your mentor Tornado chaser's talk page (diff). Have you considered any of the advice that was given to you there? Did you read all the related information and advice pages about becoming admin? Sorry to say this but, you will not be an admin anytime soon. You only have about 1100 edits, and almost 300 of those are these redirects you keep creating. You need to focus on becoming a trusted, knowledgeable and experienced editor, with 20 to 30 thousand manual edits minimum (without bots), with several dozen article creations, track records at AfD, CSD, GA/FA, AIV, AE, ANI, AN, UAA, RFPP, RfA, RfC, 3RRNB, etc., etc., and at least 3+ years of regular editing (imo). But first, you should focus on making more worthwhile edits, communicating more effectively and stop making these needless redirects. And above all you should be in regular contact with your mentor, and learning as much as you can about WP:PG and WP:MOS so that you can edit competently. This is just my 0.02¢ - wolf 06:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IamNotU: I have been busy but yes I will be back to monitoring scout MLG's edits regularly starting today or tomorrow. And @Scout MLG: you really shouldn't be thinking about becoming an admin yet. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, good to hear, thanks Tornado chaser. I guess you might want to start with why on earth Scout MLG has posted a Template:Welcome to Wikipedia on their user page, and a Template:uw-redirect2 warning on their own talk page...?! --IamNotU (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's odd, but it is their own userspace. It would appear Scout is checking out different templates, but they should follow the advice in the very notice they just posted and experiment in the sandbox. - wolf 00:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not create malicious redirects. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout MLG (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - wolf 00:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - wolf 00:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have been removing vandalism, which is great, but you don't need to give someone an "only warning" if they have recently been given a "final warning". If someone has been given a final warning, and they continue to vandalize, don't warn them again, just report them. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG, in addition to the advice above, I noticed a few related things:

1. At User talk:2601:248:527F:1AEC:CCE:A70:83F6:9C8D you left a Template:Uw-recentblockwarn that says "Your recent vandalism directly after being released from a block will not be tolerated." etc., but the user hadn't edited again after the block. Please go to that page and remove that warning.
2. At the same page, you added multiple copies of Template:Shared IP advice, after every template. Please don't do that, it's not necessary.
3. You've been modifying or making up your own template-like warnings, such as these: [7], [8], [9], etc. This may be confusing to users because they appear to be official standard warning messages, but include grammar and logic mistakes. Please don't do that. Either use the standard messages, or add your own hand-written message in addition to or instead of a standard template.
4. You've continued to create new redirect pages, [10] despite the above advice to stop doing that for now.
5. Last but not least, in this edit: [11] you reverted a helpful correction of an obvious grammar error as though it were vandalism, with no edit summary. Then, when a very experienced editor undid your revert with a polite explanation, instead of following WP:BRD, you repeated the revert with the impolite edit summary "no", and proceeded to edit war over it, templating that user for edit warring, and telling them to "calm down" when they objected on their talk page! That is not good behavior. I'll repeat my advice above: "I would strongly suggest that if someone reverts something you've done, or asks you to stop doing something, that you stop and ask for help, instead of just continuing what you're doing!"

I do see that you've successfully caught and reverted some vandalism edits, and that's appreciated. Please try to think about the above advice, especially about edit warring. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create a malicious redirect. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. This edit to M72 LAW: [12] does not provide a reliable source. I see that you made nearly the same edit last year here: [13], which was reverted as unsourced. Although this time you added a citation, you have obviously copied the entry for "China" from M79 grenade launcher#Users, and just replaced "Grenade launcher" with "M72s". The source mentions only the M79, which is a completely different weapon. You also made these edits to Daewoo Precision Industries K1: [14] and Daewoo Precision Industries K2: [15], saying that these South Korean weapons were used in the Soviet–Afghan War. The source mentions only their use in Afghanistan, referring to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), not the Soviet–Afghan War in which South Korea did not participate. Please do not make any more edits based on your own theories, analysis, or original research. You must give citations of reliable sources that specifically say what you claim that they say. Thank-you. IamNotU (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add content or create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not make threats of violence on Wikipedia. Users who make such threats may be blocked from editing, or, in severe cases, reported to law enforcement. Thank you. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want get a Topic Ban or Community Ban, thank you Scout MLG (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG, I don't understand why you've added all the extra templates above and below the warning message I left about unsourced edits, nor what you're saying about bans... You just need to stop adding unsourced or improperly-sourced material. Can you do that? --IamNotU (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah... wow. I just noticed all this after posting my comment below. Scout, dude... if you're having a hard time, finding yourself getting overwhelmed or upset, just take a break. You dont need to bombard your own talk page with all these warnings and then ask for a ban of some sort. Just logout. Go do something else for awhile. Something that you get enjoyment from or relaxes you, then at some point down the road, when you feel up to it, come back and log back in again. But don't be rash and just start pouring gasoline all over your account. It's not necessary, and later on you may find that you wish you hadn't. Also, get in touch with your mentor, Tornado chaser. He can help you when you find yourself getting in these conflicts, (hopefully before you get into them). But anyway, try to chill out a little, ok? Take it easy man - wolf 18:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry Scout MLG (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of blanking your talk page, you can archive its contents. You can set it up to be done automatically by a bot, you can organize your archive pages by number or by date (or other titles), etc., etc. Have a look here for more info. - wolf 17:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I dont know how to make big edit and source as well others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout MLG (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would strongly suggest that the first thing you need to do is stop using multiple accounts. Unless you want to claim that "MLG 420 Master" is not also your account? If it is, you need to declare if immediately and stop using it, unless a) you want to claim it as a legitimate alternate account, or b) you want that username instead of your current one. Using multiple accounts is, for the most part, not permitted. It's called sock puppetry, and if you get caught (and you very likely will), you will get blocked.

Pick an account, get in touch with your mentor, continue with what you know, like fighting vandalism. Start reading sourcing policies, like WP:RS and start with small edits, then work your way up to the "big edits" after. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 01:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Scout MLG, 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.

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! MLG 420 Master (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you trying to do with your other account (MLG 420 Master) adding warnings to your own talk page? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Uw-mos4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG, several people have asked you to explain why you are using two accounts, why you have put all these templates on your page, and other things, but you haven't answered. Instead you've been off making undiscussed and unhelpful changes to the user warning templates... It seems that you are having difficulty communicating. Your comments are never more than a short sentence. You don't answer simple questions or requests. In order to be a Wikipedia editor, communication is required.

Is there a Wikipedia project in your native language? Have you tried editing there? Maybe you would feel more comfortable, and be able to talk and learn more, in another language version of Wikipedia? You could come back here when your skills have improved, maybe in a year or so. What do you think? --IamNotU (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today, I went to Blue Mountain,NSW, Australia
There is fresh air, skytrain, as well others
In Scenic World (blue mountains)
Is far more better stay in home and play/edit in sometimes Scout MLG (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Southern Jiangsu Campaign, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. IamNotU (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, Scout MLG re-wrote my comment above, changing it from an "unsourced" warning to a "vandalism" warning. I have no idea why... my original comment is as follows:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Southern Jiangsu Campaign. IamNotU (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--IamNotU (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not make threats of violence on Wikipedia. Users who make such threats may be blocked from editing, or, in severe cases, reported to law enforcement. Thank you. MLG 420 Master (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But don’t worry, even I get blocked on English Wiki, I can still do same thing on the Chinese Wikipedia LOL Scout MLG (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mate, I from Australia, but I need warn you to stop vandalism and adding unsourced content, even you get blocked from English Wikipedia, you can still get blocked from other language Wikipedia if you bring your behavior to them! MLG 420 Master (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mate, I seen you get so many warnings and now you still keep your disruptive behavior, you have now been reported to WP:AIV. MLG 420 Master (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~)).  ST47 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

i admit my socking and other disruptive behavior, I m very sorry

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

@IamNotU: @Tornado chaser:, I m very sorry for my unsourced and disruptive socks, I will promise never do these again, but what should i do now, i don’t know when blocked is expired and I really want back to Wikipedia for anti-vandalism Scout MLG (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This block does not expire. Maybe try the Chinese language Wikipedia for a year or two. When you have proved that you can edit constructively there, maybe ask to be unblocked here. MPS1992 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also got blocked on Chinese Wikipedia either Scout MLG (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, you didn't. You added a block template to your own talk page. What are you even playing at? Why shouldn't we simply revoke your talk page access and be done with this show? ST47 (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ST47: no,no,no, please, that was accident, please give me last chance, I will won’t do that again, and I really want back to Wikipedia and I will will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and others as well I will make useful contributions. Scout MLG (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Scout MLG (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Scout MLG. You have done the right thing by filing an unblock request below. Please await a review by an admin. Sam Sailor 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

i’m very truely sorry about my disruptive behavior, doing adding unsourced material, doing socking, for now on i will promise never doing these again and I will helping to doing revert vandalism. Scout MLG Scout MLG (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

User was socking after submitting this request, declining... ST47 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

@ST47:, Hi, I m Scout, I know I m blocked because be disruptive behavior, so can you give me some advice and give me some help how to make useful contributions? Thanks. Scout MLG (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #25064 was submitted on May 06, 2019 03:15:00. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello Everyone
Today, i said sorry to every editors on Wikipedia and Wikipedia community
i admit my socks, i know is very harmful to Wikipedia community
I m very sorry for my recent socking because as now i Just want to do anti-vandalism (undo vandalism)
For Now on, i will not to do any harmful things to wikipedia
I will promise, 100% not to do any sock account ever again
please forgive me
i m very sorry. Scout MLG (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

You deliberately set up a second account to continue violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. You can earn back your trust by refraining from all edits, refraining from all violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE, then come back in six months and apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to explain your abuses and convince us we can trust you again. At the moment, you've clearly demonstrated you can't be trusted. Yamla (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

@Yamla: This user has now two confirmed socks, meaning he used a third account. That's when I changed the user's block to a CU block, as noted earlier. I should also point out that after the unblock request was denied by ST47, the user slapped a "retired permanently" on their Talk page along with this comment: "because Scout MLG need fresh start", which is a promise to create additional socks. When you add to the mix the number of lies this user has told, I would not extend the standard offer.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like someone who's just too immature to work here right now, and needs the passage of a significant amount of time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jimbo Wales:, hello Mr.Jimbo, I’m Scout MLG, because i added some unsourced content and doing socking, cause some Wikipedia editors don’t trust me and decline my unblock request, what should I do now? Scout MLG (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Talk page access has been revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #25068 was submitted on May 06, 2019 14:37:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG, I'm sorry you got blocked, but you were already given many chances and much advice, which you ignored. Please stop making unblock requests, you will not be unblocked. What you should do now is edit on Chinese Wikipedia. If you are able to make positive contributions there, without any disruption or blocks, it will make a good reputation for you. Then you can try to come back to English Wikipedia when you're a bit older, and ask again to be unblocked. I think you should wait a couple of years, maybe wait until you're 18. Until then, please don't try to edit English Wikipedia. WP:fresh start is not allowed for people who are blocked. The block is for you, not just your account. If you edit while logged out, or make more new accounts, you will be blocked again for sockpuppetry. That will make it almost impossible to get unblocked in the future. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scout MLG has appealed to the Arbitration Committee. This has been declined, and the earliest they can appeal is 16 November 2019, though the recommendation is that they wait longer than that. SilkTork (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Reply[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #27105 was submitted on Oct 12, 2019 12:43:26. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect '67 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#'67 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]