Jump to content

User talk:Justegypt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Justegypt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hi Justegypt! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of List of tallest people several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:List of tallest people, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest people

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of tallest people 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are reverting other intermediary edits as well as the addition of then individual you wish to includeHalbared (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ObserveOwl (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Manuductive (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (List of tallest people) for edit warring.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Joyous!. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tutankhamun, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joyous! Noise! 21:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joyous,
I appreciate your commitment to accuracy, and I respect that. After making my edit, I noted, "I will add the sources immediately," but unfortunately, you removed it before I had the chance. In any case, I have now refined the wording and added multiple sources. Justegypt (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Tutankhamun 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Justegypt reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Tutankhamun.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I did not enter into an editing war, but rather the rest of the editors did. My edit in Tutankhamun’s article was deleted several times for no reason. I asked the rest of the editors to go to the talk page, but to no avail. I did not receive a response, but a short while ago I started a conversation on the talk page, and we will find a solution, so blocking me is not necessary. Justegypt (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this is backwards...... you reverted multiple editors.... I started the conversation of the talk page and tried to respond as fast as I could in between all your edits. Truthfulness is something we take seriously here. Moxy🍁 02:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are lying. No one tried to discuss with me while I restored my edit, and I stopped trying to recover my edit after the discussion started Justegypt (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We keep a history of all edits here's the talk page timeline and here is the article timeline. I wish you all the best of luck in your other endeavors. Moxy🍁 02:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While restoring my edit, I was writing that I did not receive any response, and this proves that I actually did not see the replies. I am a newbie to Wikipedia and the control panel is a little confusing, but after I became able to respond, I stopped restoring the edit and I was banned shortly after writing my last comment on the talk page, so you can stop lying. Justegypt (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions in order. Moxy🍁 03:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
dum Justegypt (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ramses II Grand Egyptian Museum.jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Ramses II Grand Egyptian Museum.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Moxy🍁 03:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Justegypt! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I am a new Wikipedia user. Before joining, I was very excited to contribute, but now I find myself being unfairly harassed by certain editors without any valid reason. Yesterday, while browsing the Tutankhamun article, I was surprised to find no mention of Hussein Abdel-Rasoul, the boy who discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun. Not even a single image of him was included, despite the existence of a well-known photograph of him wearing Tutankhamun's necklace. In response, I added a section titled "A Different Account", acknowledging that there are differing views among Egyptologists regarding the discovery, while also noting that many prominent scholars, such as Zahi Hawass, support Hussein's role as fact. I included both academic and journalistic sources to support this. After publishing my edit, I left a note for fellow editors stating that my contribution took several hours and should be respected. I also invited discussion if there were any objections. However, I was shocked to see my edit completely removed and was insulted by the user Moxy, who, while reverting my edit, wrote: "Need to bring to talk so the adults can review." I respectfully requested that a discussion be opened on the talk page, emphasizing that an editor’s work should not be erased so easily. However, I received no response. Later, I noticed that Moxy had started a discussion on the talk page but was the only participant. I asked him to explain his objections to my edit, but he had no clear reasons. He simply disliked the idea of giving Hussein Abdel-Rasoul a proper mention and insisted on relegating him to a footnote. I argued that this was unfair, as the page is classified as a Good Article, which means it should be neutral. Yet, there was no neutrality here—Hussein Abdel-Rasoul was merely referred to as “the boy” without his name being mentioned anywhere in the main text, only hidden in a footnote that most readers wouldn’t open. Moxy continued to delay the discussion, and no other editors joined in. Then, to my surprise, I was blocked by user Bbb23 for violating Wikipedia's Three-Revert Rule. As a new user, I was unaware of this rule, but no consideration was given to that. I appealed to Bbb23 to lift the block, as I had already stopped reverting my edit once the discussion with Moxy began, hoping to reach a fair resolution. However, my appeal was denied, leaving me unable to continue the discussion. Moxy then falsely accused me of repeatedly reverting my edit while he was trying to start a discussion. I clarified that, as a new user, I found Wikipedia's interface confusing, and I had stopped reverting once I noticed that a discussion had started on the talk page. However, after posting my last comment in the discussion, I was blocked by Bbb23. Frankly, Wikipedia has been a toxic and hostile environment for new editors. Since joining, I have repeatedly asked myself: Why was my edit entirely deleted? Shouldn’t we have had a discussion to find a fair compromise? I even suggested to Moxy that we revise the wording of my edit about Hussein, but he ignored me and continued speaking in a condescending manner, summarizing my arguments dismissively rather than engaging in a serious discussion. How is it acceptable for editors like this to have so much authority and treat new contributors so poorly? How is it possible for one editor in a discussion to impose his opinion and erase my work completely? I request that my block be lifted so I can return to the talk page and continue the discussion. A fair resolution must be reached, and Hussein Abdel-Rasoul deserves to be mentioned in the main "Discovery" section of the article. Thank you. Justegypt (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is over 600 words and according to my toolset, was generated by an AI. Please use your own words and use 50 - 150 words in your unblock request. This is much, much too long. Yamla (talk) 19:58, 22 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Note this text is not written in ai it has only been translated in ai because English is not my mother tongue + I will not be able to explain it in summary .. Hello, I am a new Wikipedia user. Before joining, I was very excited to contribute, but now I find myself being unfairly harassed by certain editors without any valid reason. Yesterday, while browsing the Tutankhamun article, I was surprised to find no mention of Hussein Abdel-Rasoul, the boy who discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun. Not even a single image of him was included, despite the existence of a well-known photograph of him wearing Tutankhamun's necklace. In response, I added a section titled "A Different Account", acknowledging that there are differing views among Egyptologists regarding the discovery, while also noting that many prominent scholars, such as Zahi Hawass, support Hussein's role as fact. I included both academic and journalistic sources to support this. After publishing my edit, I left a note for fellow editors stating that my contribution took several hours and should be respected. I also invited discussion if there were any objections. However, I was shocked to see my edit completely removed and was insulted by the user Moxy, who, while reverting my edit, wrote: "Need to bring to talk so the adults can review." I respectfully requested that a discussion be opened on the talk page, emphasizing that an editor’s work should not be erased so easily. However, I received no response. Later, I noticed that Moxy had started a discussion on the talk page but was the only participant. I asked him to explain his objections to my edit, but he had no clear reasons. He simply disliked the idea of giving Hussein Abdel-Rasoul a proper mention and insisted on relegating him to a footnote. I argued that this was unfair, as the page is classified as a Good Article, which means it should be neutral. Yet, there was no neutrality here—Hussein Abdel-Rasoul was merely referred to as “the boy” without his name being mentioned anywhere in the main text, only hidden in a footnote that most readers wouldn’t open. Moxy continued to delay the discussion, and no other editors joined in. Then, to my surprise, I was blocked by user Bbb23 for violating Wikipedia's Three-Revert Rule. As a new user, I was unaware of this rule, but no consideration was given to that. I appealed to Bbb23 to lift the block, as I had already stopped reverting my edit once the discussion with Moxy began, hoping to reach a fair resolution. However, my appeal was denied, leaving me unable to continue the discussion. Moxy then falsely accused me of repeatedly reverting my edit while he was trying to start a discussion. I clarified that, as a new user, I found Wikipedia's interface confusing, and I had stopped reverting once I noticed that a discussion had started on the talk page. However, after posting my last comment in the discussion, I was blocked by Bbb23. Frankly, Wikipedia has been a toxic and hostile environment for new editors. Since joining, I have repeatedly asked myself: Why was my edit entirely deleted? Shouldn’t we have had a discussion to find a fair compromise? I even suggested to Moxy that we revise the wording of my edit about Hussein, but he ignored me and continued speaking in a condescending manner, summarizing my arguments dismissively rather than engaging in a serious discussion. How is it acceptable for editors like this to have so much authority and treat new contributors so poorly? How is it possible for one editor in a discussion to impose his opinion and erase my work completely? I request that my block be lifted so I can return to the talk page and continue the discussion. A fair resolution must be reached, and Hussein Abdel-Rasoul deserves to be mentioned in the main "Discovery" section of the article. Thank you. Justegypt (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. User has made an unblock request of a more sensible length, below. That will be reviewed by a different admin. Yamla (talk) 22:18, 22 February 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.

This unblock request is longer than your first one. I very strongly suggest removing your open unblock request, leaving the declined unblock request untouched. If you are unable to write an unblock request of appropriate length, there's no reasonable chance your block will be lifted. In fact, you may lose access to your talk page. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 22 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I edited Tutankhamun's article and another editor deleted my edit, so I restored it and asked him to go to the talk page, but he continued to delete my edit and when we discussed he didn't have a clear reason for this act other than that he doesn't like the shape of the page like this, so this is not a edit war or Sabotage as this user @Moxy was not punished like me and I am even unable to complete the discussion because of the ban I want to unblock now Justegypt (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I want to start by saying that I understand your frustration regarding the edits on the article. Most editors do not engage in an edit war because they are trying to vandalize; rather, they think the article should be written in a specific manner, such as by including a mention of an important figure. That said, I am declining this unblock request for multiple reasons.

First, in an earlier unblock request, you stated that, as a new editor, you were unaware of the rules surrounding editwarring. However, your talk page has warnings about edit warring from February 12 and February 15, as well as an ANI notice about edit warring from February 18. Claiming that you were unaware of policy regarding edit warring tells me one of two things: you either don't review your talk page or you ignored warnings.

Second, in an earlier comment, you say, I did not enter into an editing war, but rather the rest of the editors did. Looking at the article in question, I see that you reverted edits by other editors and/or changed the article to be the way you wanted it to be six times in a single day. Five other editors were involved, which means you were the only one who violated the three-revert rule. Regardless, it is not up to other editors to start a discussion on the talk page. Once your edits have been reverted, you should immediately go to the talk page instead of re-adding them.

Lastly, as Diannaa stated below, at least one of your edits contained copyrighted material, which means they could not be accepted.

If you request an unblock, you need accept responsibility for the edit war, explain what you'll do in the future to refrain from edit warring, and address the copyright issues. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:31, 23 February 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.

Hi I appreciate you being here to help me

I understand that I had a previous warning regarding the article about the tallest people in the world but I really did not understand this rule and I did not understand how Wikipedia works and how we determine whether this is vandalism or an edit war or not The second thing regarding my edit history in the article about Tutankhamun I did not notice that a discussion started on the talk page so I was retrieving my edit again and after I noticed that a discussion started I stopped retrieving my edit and started the discussion with the modifier moxy and after writing my last comment in the discussion I was banned by another editor and I explained to him that I did not understand the rule and that I am a new modder here but he ignored me It should also be taken into consideration that my editing took me several hours I searched many sources and read a lot until I was able to make sure that the sources are good and the text is good so I was angry when my text was deleted for no real reason and with belittling my effort The third thing regarding copyright I did not know that this is considered a violation I took a short text from National Geographic The fourth thing I still do not see that I am responsible for an edit war because I honestly I didn't understand the law and I hope you understand this As for what I will do after unblocking? I will report more than one user like Moxy for practicing racism against me, then I will work on a new text that does not contain copyright and I will post it on the discussion page so that we can reach a solution without conflict.justegypt (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by justegypt (talk • contribs) 4:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not knowing the rules is not an excuse to get out of breaking them. Continuing to state that it's OK for you to not abide by the rules because you didn't know them will not get you unblocked, especially when you had every reason to know this particular rule. Also, make sure you sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now what is this an indefinite ban? Lol I want to unblock this ban now so I can go back to the talk page and discuss my edit. I also want to file a complaint against Moxy for practicing racism against me and also against more than one other editor and I can't do anything because I'm banned.Justegypt (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the community is looking for is acknowledgment of why you were blocked see WP:NOTTHEM. Be aware you were blocked for WP:Edit warring. Perhaps you'd be more productive in editing the Wikipedia in your own language.Moxy🍁 22:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content you added was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted photo is a photo of Ramses II that was posted on Instagram. The presence of this photo on Instagram does not mean that it is not mine. It does not mean anything at all. On what basis was this classified as a copyright violation? + Can you unblock me? I want to return to the discussion on the Tutankhamun page Justegypt (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about a photo. Some of the prose you added was a match for material found here. Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already quoted a little from there and suggested on the talk page of Tutankhamun's article that we modify the text to reach a better text, and now I can't do anything because I'm banned for no reason. Justegypt (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are only permitted to have one unblock request at a time. This is your last warning for your disruption on this page. Next time I will revoke Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I have the Wikipedia rule book in my hand? I'm a new editor how do I know that? Can you please do your job and be helpful and polite to help a new editor here? Or are you useless with your powers? You have the ability to lift the ban but you are a bureaucrat You can warn me day and night but you won't review my unban request This is a bad comedy show Get out of here and let a real editor review my application. Justegypt (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justegypt, I will point out at the top of this page I placed a welcome message that contained links to our policy & guidelines. So yes, you did have the Wikipedia rule book at hand. You have also been warned a multitude of times & chosen to ignore those warnings. Frankly your statement that You can warn me day and night but you won't review my unban [sic] request is ironic. Why would any administrator unblock you when you have willfully disregard Wikipedia's policies & procedures, &, by the tone of your replies, seem set in your disruptive behavior? The path to being unblocked is demonstrating that you understand our policies & guidelines, & having the humility to admit that you have made mistakes. I, for one, am unconvinced that you are capable of this. Peaceray (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you go and play that daddy role with Moxy who said to me with a racist phrase go write in your language? Isn't that against Wikipedia? Oh, I forgot, you have something more important, banning a new editor for no reason Justegypt (talk) 06:26, 23 February 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).

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

Request reason:

hi I was banned for being accused of an edit war, although I explained more than once to the editors that I was not well aware of the rules and showed my good intentions and delayed the last editor who reviewed my request to unban me that I would discuss away from conflicts but he refused my request, I need to unban so that I can discuss my edit again, I also want to file a complaint against another editor because of his racism towards me, now I am aware of the rule of editing 3 times and I promise to abide by it

Decline reason:

Your comment above, as well as the unfounded accusation of racism are personal attacks which disqualify you from being unblocked. Since you've sunk to that, I am now removing talk page access. That will leave you with WP:UTRS for further appeals if you can address the issues that led to your block and refrain from personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 23 February 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.

UTRS appeal #100658

[edit]

was declined by another admin. User is prohibited from any further UTRS requests for six months. --Yamla (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justegypt&oldid=1277274570"