Budisgood

Request

I noticed that you gave a link to the Laois GAA Bible as a source. It is a massive book, so page numbers are appreciated. That makes fact checking much easier. The Banner talk 04:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The Banner talk 12:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome Budisgood (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Budisgood. Thank you for your work on Raheen GAA. Another editor, I dream of horses, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please add sourcing. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|I dream of horses}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Killeigh parish moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Killeigh parish. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Guliolopez (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions

A short description should be short.

And punctuation (like commas) should be followed by a space. The Banner talk 00:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ok thanks, If I am unblocked I will take your advice Budisgood (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ballinagar GAA

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ballinagar GAA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.offalyexpress.ie/news/local-news/953729/the-man-behind-the-wire-ballinagar-s-magical-year-an-inspiration-to-all-small-clubs-in-offaly.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. The Banner talk 02:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ballinagar GAA moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ballinagar GAA. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Highlighting a Talk page discussion is not "vandalism"

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. (Placing a tag to highlight the existence of a Talk page discussion is, for example, not vandalism. And removing such a tag, in an edit with an edsumm of "Undid Vandalism", is not in keeping with related etiquette guidelines.) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

• an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
• a workspace for a draft article
• a personal website, blog, or social media site
• a space for self-promotion or other advertising
• a CV, resumé or lengthy autobiography

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Please use your user sandbox or the draft article space to practice editing or to create new articles. You have false information on your user page that could mislead others. Please remove. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Duallzy noted Budisgood (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I really like to have an answer...

... on why you have snatched my user page? The Banner talk 17:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

there are similarities i suppose Budisgood (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Then you could have copied the items you like, but just snatching the whole page is rude and disrespectful. The Banner talk 17:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not mean to snatch the whole page that was accidental and I have since removed large portions, apologies for that Budisgood (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Strange edits

1. Why do you add double info to Ballinagar GAA? The lead is in fact identical to your addition.
2. Do you gave proof that the mentioned GAA-clubs are formally part of the catholic parish Mountmellick (parish)? That the priest is involved in the the GAA, does not make it part of the parish.

The Banner talk 05:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why a barony, a civil administration entity, is relevant to a Catholic parish? I can imagine a parish grouping of some sort but not a civil entity. The Banner talk 11:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The baronys boundaries are based off the boundaries of the rc parishes of Mountmellick, Rosenallis and Clonaslee. Budisgood (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you prove that? Baronies were instituted when the RC Church was prohibited. Please read Barony (Ireland). The Banner talk 21:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mountmellick (parish) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Repeatedly adding non-RC-parish entities as being part of the RC-parish constitutes vandalism The Banner talk 03:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Shanahoe GAA, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 04:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The edits provided very relevant information that Shanahoe GAA no longer fields its own hurlimg teams and now plays hurling in an amalgamation with St Fintan's, Colt GAA as Colt–Shanahoe GAA Budisgood (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Shanahoe GAA have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Deliberately messing up the article The Banner talk 02:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shanahoe GAA. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Banner talk 17:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The edits provide up to date relevant sourced information that helps maintain the accuracy of the article Budisgood (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI

I have request help to review your edits. The low quality of your work is bothering me, especially the lack of sourcing and the lack of relevance. it is not that I have a personal grudge against you, but seeing how you fail to adhere to advice and warnings, something has to be done. I hope you can do better. The Banner talk 12:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout

As you seem to have developed the incorrect habit of putting the lead before the infobox, I give you a link about how to structure an article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. The Banner talk 05:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Even with this link, you keep messing up articles. This is at least pure incompetence or just vandalism. Enough. The Banner talk 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Reported at AN/I

I have filed a report about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Budisgood and competence. In my opinion, you fail the competence requirements. The Banner talk 14:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy now are you, so what were your specific main motivators for reporting me. Budisgood (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Incompetence. The Banner talk 23:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

How long would you recommend I wait before trying to get unblocked Budisgood (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sarsfields Mountmellick LFC Crest.jpg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:Sarsfields Mountmellick LFC Crest.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/SarsfieldsLGFA. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
  If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
• It is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles. (See section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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 you should do two things. First, please 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. Second, please add the relevant copyright tag.

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. The Banner talk 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I have declined the speedy, for reasons given on File talk:Sarsfields Mountmellick LFC Crest.jpg. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article) and File) for a period of Indefinite for Copyright issues. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What namespaces am i blocked from editing and how long is the block for Budisgood (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing mainspace articles and uploading any file (i.e pictures) indefinitely. If you exhibit willingness to correct the issues that led to the block, you may be unblocked, but the block won't expire by itself. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What you mean by willingness to correct the issues that lead to the block, any of the issues that were mentioned in the report were in the past and have already been corrected and are not seen in my recent edits Budisgood (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If that is true, good. You will be unblocked very quickly. But if that isn't true, people will find out and your situation will get worse. You are blocked for "copyright infringement", so analyse yourself for why your edits are being marked as copyvio. Some editors have brought up advice, so as much you may dislike them, please take it on board. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a potential disruption or harm to Wikipedia I understand that i was blocked because of fear that I may be harmful to Wikipedia in causing copyright and I have reviewed the errors they were concerned about some of which had ready been corrected, as for uploads to Wikimedia commons the GAA crests that I was uploading are free to be uploaded but I have to make sure the correct detailed information is uploaded to ensure they do not breach copyright or other restrictions on use of themBudisgood (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Oh come on. You created yet another account, Iwillrise, three minutes after editing this page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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 there! I wanted to let you know that I have moved your unblock request to the bottom of the page as it is helpful to see messages listed in chronological order. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello again! Looking at your unblock request, I appreciate you bringing up concerns regarding copyright violations. However, you are currently blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. As such, I would suggest taking the standard offer: do not edit Wikipedia for six months, then come ask and request an unblock. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have multiple accounts, but is the block still for at least 6 months then Budisgood (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Budisgood tells something different. The Banner talk 17:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Can say what it wants but thats not me if I was going to try create a second account why would I make it so obvious as to give myself an award.

So I am blocked for at least 6 months? Budisgood (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the block notice, you are blocked indefinitely. That means you are blocked until you can convince an administrator that you won't disrupt the project if allowed back. You were checkuser blocked, which means there was very strong evidence you were socking. If you continue to deny it, you are likely to remain blocked. If you sock again, you are sure to remain blocked. If you make a bunch of unconvincing unblock requests, you may lose talk page access, which would make it much more difficult to get unblocked. I agree that the most likely way for you to be unblocked is to edit another project, such as simple wikipedia or one in another language you speak, for six months without any other problems, then request an unblock under the standard offer. This would show the administrators that you can contribute.

I have seen users be unblocked without the standard offer. Usually they discuss what they did, how it was disruptive, why it harms the encyclopedia, and a promise to not do it again. If you don't understand or don't admit that what you've done is wrong, trying this will likely be declined, and may lose talk page access if continued. I'm not an administrator, but my impression is that an unblock request would have to address copyright violations and socking EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

So I am only blocked on english Wikipedia and still contribute on other lanuages Budisgood (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That is correct; this block is only for the English Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe you are blocked elsewhere. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, considering your first edit to the French Wikipedia was a translated copyvio of an English Wikipedia article, this probably won't last long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For further clarity, we have no control over and don't generally care what happens on other projects. If you cause problems on other projects that we notice that we feel may not be obvious, we may warn them as good samaritans, but it will be up to editors and admins of those projects to decide what to do with you. Regardless of what we do, editors in other projects are likely to notice if you keep causing problems in their projects and will block you independently. It's possible that some projects may consider your block here as part of their decision tree in to how to handle you there, even if it's not something we generally do for other projects. Also while each project has their own policies in guidelines it's likely that all of them forbid spamming and socking; and they also cannot allow copyvios since that's a WMF ToU issue. 07:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

How many more sockpuppets are you going to create? By now at least 5 sockpuppets are blocked. The Banner talk 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What you mean Budisgood (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That today another sockpuppet was blocked. The Banner talk 21:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You may have blocked another editor but they are not a sockpuppet of mine. Budisgood (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I will concede that the other ones you blocked as sockpuppets were in fact sockpuppetts but I have since given up on attempting this as it is clear there is no point in attempting to get around the block as for cautious editors like you who are dedicated to maintain the high standard of wikipedia, this is why I have decided to wait it out and if my block was ever to be removed I would ve grateful to make contributions to wikipedia again but before I sign off their are a few important notes I need to bring to your attention first of all, 1 of the ip addresses which you have blocked because of me is a public wifi and in blocking it you are unintentionally blocking other wikipedia editors, 2 not all of the edits that were done by me were malicious and could have contributed to wikipedia and if they were reviewed many of them there may be useful info that can be used and thirdly I would like to apologise to the recent editor who has been caught in the crossfire of my blocks and I hope this does not discourage them from making contributions to Wikipedia.

Finally on a closing mark I would like to thank you The Banner though we may have gotten under each others skin now and then it was with good intentions and you are a great asset to Wikipedia I hope that one day I may be able to make contributions to Wikipedia again, I acknowledge my wrongdoing and that I did not always approach things the best way but now I will wait and accept the block on my account and I can only hope that one day it may be removed even if its only a miniscule chance of that,thank you to all the editors that attempted to make me a better editor and I regret that I did not take it on board. Budisgood (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You did not creep under my skin. You made it clear that your editing was a risk for the encyclopedia. And I acted to protect the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledge my wrongdoing Budisgood (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That acknowledgement is clearly another hollow phrase with a new sockpuppet blocked today. The Banner talk 22:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You can continue to block wrongly accused editors as sockpuppets if you wish but I have decided to no longer attempt to edit Wikipedia unless the ban on this account is lifted but that is not going to happen anytime soon, I included in my apology part of my reasoning for it which was that other editors were getting caught in the crossfire and has happened yet again just because someone might edit an article that I edited in the past does not make them a sockpuppet you should really carry out a more thorough investigation. Budisgood (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

With every sockpuppet blocked, your chances on a return get even smaller. The Banner talk 23:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The most recent 2 users you blocked as sockpuppets were not my sockpuppets Budisgood (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ow, and I am not the blocking admin or the actual investigator. The actual investigation is done by someone else who has specialized tools available to look in the technique behind an edit. So I can report, the final verdict is coming from others. The Banner talk 01:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes but you do report it to them Budisgood (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I have removed the malformed {{coi}} template Bud added in this edit. Per Template:COI, it is to be used for articles, not to tag talk pages. Also, as there was no evidence presented to suggest The Banner has a COI (COI with what, exactly?) it could be interpreted as an WP:ASPERSION, and so I removed it under WP:NPA. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sign off

I will concede that the other ones you blocked as sockpuppets were in fact sockpuppetts but I have since given up on attempting this as it is clear there is no point in attempting to get around the block as for cautious editors like you who are dedicated to maintain the high standard of wikipedia, this is why I have decided to wait it out and if my block was ever to be removed I would ve grateful to make contributions to wikipedia again but before I sign off their are a few important notes I need to bring to your attention first of all, 1 of the ip addresses which you have blocked because of me is a public wifi and in blocking it you are unintentionally blocking other wikipedia editors, 2 not all of the edits that were done by me were malicious and could have contributed to wikipedia and if they were reviewed many of them there may be useful info that can be used and thirdly I would like to apologise to the recent editor who has been caught in the crossfire of my blocks and I hope this does not discourage them from making contributions to Wikipedia. Finally on a closing mark I would like to thank you The Banner though we may have gotten under each others skin now and then it was with good intentions and you are a great asset to Wikipedia I hope that one day I may be able to make contributions to Wikipedia again, I acknowledge my wrongdoing and that I did not always approach things the best way but now I will wait and accept the block on my account and I can only hope that one day it may be removed even if its only a miniscule chance of that,thank you to all the editors that attempted to make me a better editor and I regret that I did not take it on board. The Banner Thank you and so long I intend to wait a substantial period before requesting my block is removed to allow me review myself and prove I will no longer be of threat to wikipedia. Budisgood (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Community, I am writing to apologize for my recent actions on Wikipedia, which led to my being blocked for sockpuppetry. I fully understand the importance of maintaining a transparent and trustworthy editing community, and I regret any actions that may have undermined this principle. I acknowledge that my use of multiple accounts to influence discussions and votes was a violation of Wikipedia's policies. This behavior was a mistake, and I now recognize the harm it can cause to the integrity of the encyclopedia and the community. I apologize for any disruption or confusion my actions may have caused. I have taken the time to reflect on my behavior and understand the gravity of my actions. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies moving forward. I am eager to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community and to rebuild trust with my fellow editors. I kindly request that you consider removing my block so that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive and transparent manner. I am ready to engage in discussions and collaborations that align with the values and principles of Wikipedia. In particular i would like to apologise to users such as The Banner who in hindsight I can now see that they were only trying to guide me to making more constructive edits that would benefit the community unfortunately I did not take all their advice on board and instead tried to work around the block further digging my hole, thanks for all your understanding I feel that I could be of great benefit and prior to my blocking I made some valuable additions to wikipedia creating multiple pages and subcategories and making substantial contributions to pages. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. Sincerely, BudisgoodBudisgood (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request is almost certainly generated by an AI. That is less relevant than you yet again evading your block. Confirmed to Citationdictation. That's enough to upgrade this to a ban. As per WP:3X, you are now considered banned by the community. No admin is free to unilaterally lift your ban. Yamla (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request

{{unblock | reason=I made an unblock request but they tried to accuse me of using an ai to generate my reply which simply isnt true and is just another attack on my character and I would also like to comment that there so called discovery of a sockpuppet is not true I am in no way related to this named user I have not been active on Wikipedia recently simply banning any user that edits a page I once edited is not constructive and simply stupid and counterintuitive to the aim of growing Wikipedia.

I acknowledge that my use of multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia's policies was wrong. This behavior was a mistake on my part, and I now recognize the harm it caused to the integrity of Wikipedia and the community ofeditors. I apologize for the disruption and confusion my actions have caused.

I have taken the time to reflect on my behavior and understand the gravity of my actions. I am committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies moving forward. I am eager to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community and to rebuild trust with my fellow editors.

I kindly request that you consider removing my block so that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive and transparent manner. I am ready to engage in discussions and collaborate with other wikipedia users.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration.

Sincerely, [user:Budisgood|Budidsgood]

As @Yamla: states at your last request: As per WP:3X, you are now considered banned by the community. No admin is free to unilaterally lift your ban. With 13 confirmed and two suspected sockpuppets, there is no way back. The Banner talk 14:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@The Banner: I wouldn't consider it a good idea to say this, especially "there is no way back" and because you are not an admin. WP:1LC states:

• However, this essay may apply to users banned for repeated block evasion, after a standard offer period

A user who repeatedly evades a block and whose socks' contributions are in line with policy is more likely to be allowed back per WP:SO after community discussion. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 05:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

You are welcome to remove all content from this page except for declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Please do not do that again. --Yamla (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It was not my intention to cover up declined unblock requests my apologies, thanks for informing me. Budisgood (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)