User talk:Banalnasal
Add topicWelcome!
[edit]
Hello, Banalnasal, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Notification
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump TYVM. Banalnasal (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump could you send me a more precise link please. I was landed on the main page and kept scrolling and scrolling. i doubt ill contribute since I have to research editing every time. <-- newbie Banalnasal (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Link: AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
May 2026
[edit]
- @Rsjaffe there are no viable personal attacks I mentioned here at all. I did say that the page is a corruption to wikipedia. should I have added IMO? Banalnasal (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- It's in your edit history. You can always appeal the block. I suggest you use the Wikipedia:Unblock_wizard if you want to appeal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi. Hope You're all having a good day..
- I want to paste what I copied down here...
- "
- The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit source". More information about this error.
- "
- This is a notice that pops-up when I go to reply to the BlueSonnet Comment below.
- Have you seen this before?
- Could you also please copy paste here 'exactly' what I said that was grounds for blocking me, since the 'go-around' "you've apparently attempted to discredit and harass an editor" isn't true at all. Banalnasal (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well, it appears as though there is only editing... and a 'wizard' is just buttons that goes to a page... as a redirect.. and then everything i press is a action button that lands what is in text in the textbox below... that's almost... archaic. i'm not arguing about something not worth arguing about. i will revisit this in a year and apply for an unblock then... but something bestterrr cince. no i'm not a mensa genius, and i don't owe anybody personalized anwers to personalized quetsoins especially random people more confused about whats going on here than myself.
- why don't you ask.... if i was blocked indefinitely... what the heck is everyone so avid about when it comes to fixing it right now? did u screw up? i think so. but also. i shouldn't be here fixing wikimedia, should i. plus, why wasn't the block for 3 weeks? i didn't make any personally attacks, use any threatening behavior. and that wasn't said, so just don't type here. please don't reply to me. fix your problems you signed up for fixing. Banalnasal (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's in your edit history. You can always appeal the block. I suggest you use the Wikipedia:Unblock_wizard if you want to appeal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe
- I read this is method is sometimes accepted as an appeal. the system will not allow me to retrieve my forgotten password (ip problem). I won't be able to perform an appeal thru the wizard. please copy paste below if a place for it applies.
- thanks for understanding.
- banalnasal
- asking for block to be removed (appeal)
Banalnasal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
- Firstly. people are encouraged to be proactive learning how to do things. Mentioning my involvement with LLM and it's utilization to fulfill my goal is and was completely irrelavent. it is something I was criticized for in the discussion. I made a discussion when I edited an article to propose it get deleted. I was told I did it correctly after some indie and future indie criticism, and speculation. I am new to the community and I am here to remove a page, using the guidelines to the best of my ability. the page does not belong and it is not just an opinion of mine it is indeed a fact. The subject Gnome opened up a port for aggression deliberately criticizing a comment I made to 3Dot, which he had no business doing. I had no business messaging 311DOT anyway, myself. I see that now. I decided to whimsically due to the suggested 'option' WP shows on the page where i would find out about help with a questionable person. gnome. as a first time editor, I was logged in and only did what I went to do, install the edit 'nomination for deletion'. I also had time at some point where I noticed the primary edit on the Article and the author. Without knowing what a talk page is, I clicked it and this was when I noticed another questionable page. at this point, gnome has begun to retaliate with my process for doing things. i'my comments are not LLM induced or supplemented, as you so provocatively suggested. that, I've never done. doing that is about unwise as the halphazard claim of [me] doing that. an apology which was described as such right away was what it was. I received a hostile and brittle response from the gnome rather quickly, which further shows his putting himself where he doesn't belong quickly. I have shown that too however. that he is not identically blocked is hypocritical. although I attempted to use the term 'gaslighting' as a method for neutrality and calmness [as I was aware gnome was reading every talk page I'm linked to at the time] [my common sense] also fact not an i'opinion, which is illustrated by his first com,emt on 311dor talk page. it proves he was following my trail and imvolving himself unprofessionally and immaturely unnecessarily. myself asking for help from 311dot is immature but also ignorant, as I'm new.. which gnome is not. interpreting words which are meant to be passive replies as hostile makes no sense. I do not need to do that and if I would have liked to I would have been concisely deliberate to carefully do so. I created the nomination deliberately and carefully. I would not logically jeopardize this by ayye,lying to argue with another account for no reason whatsoever. the words from talk were brought into the discussion for intervention & the discussion on article, but not while quoting them specifically. the nature of how im spoken of in the page of where [I'm up for blocking] is predominantly assumptive. someone has every right to try to keep the peace, but I, not the one who disturbed the peace. the way I spoke to people about things they had no business speaking on Back to me was and is where it started with ,u initially talk to 311DOT. based on that, correlating aspects of the 'evidence' induced to perform an account Block [which it was] ties into mostly erratic first time behavior and the confusion of talking to 211dot, which we all know I did not need to do. should t that have happened, the page would undergo simple discussion, not including aspects of misbehavior. also that could have shined poorly on gnome, should I not have messaged 311dot. yet we both played in aggravating nothing into something, frankly right off the bat. it's easy to admit here that I and gnome have no stake at this point in otherwise seeing the discussion pull through. I would like to partake in the discussion and it is of my firm opinion the page should not have begun to exist. it may seem like I'm pointing back and forth gnome and me, but I'm really illustrating how things got unnecessarily carried away AND by accident, when I [new account editor] came here to do something for community. that is my interpretation. in fact, I would have specifically gone out of my way to avoid the author, specifically since I cannot explain for him.her what isn't valid immediately [removal.deletion]... sorry I'll stop using brackets. I've seen what I've done. then there's the claim of my bad behavior. well for one. I'm in a feature of wikipedia where we are only expected to communicate (talk) which I've managed to not respect also... the moment I saw it. I put 'also' cause it's easy to put there. I am not one to consider explaining myself for others. these two things really have to do with me being afraid that the author and I could invariably go head to head somehow. so I used the talk to talk and promoted the possibility of him deleting my afd. I don't know who this person is then, I don't say to myself he's not a good guy. I understand and I understand the drive to contribute. in fact I explained that. this was met with a sort of sarcasm but ignorant response, similar to myself in aspects. did he need to say anything? yeah. cause he did he/she.*. but I did too and I regardless of how people hoped to criticize it in my 'review page or bad person discussion wp), it wasn't intended for others I'm that context. for user gnome, its intended to try to say I understand without saying I understand. now how am I to do that and make sense to him about the deletion nomination as well? not sure. much of it was banter, not concise talk. less of a reason to bring up LLM. I do not have authentic communication issues. I have been in a position that one would not envy. perhaps I'm taking the world too seriously trying to get what I want. but so what that's a personal problem. so yes. I did apologize, and intended to get to the discussion (deletion). and it wasn't understood cause it can't be explained. did I really say anything that o awful? the apology seemed halphazard since I really had very little to apologize for. I did not mean to intrusively object to his rationale. I did not condemn his psyche while creating the article. I didn't even say 'i get it's, and I'm not getting into that. the opinionated type of nonsense that led to a block is all this correlates to. the page showing me being talked about. that's not written well. it's like 3 points and one of them was a compliment [I apologized.. followed by a bunch of maybies?] so I'm not the only one here. getting carried away. now did do and admit to the wrong 'messaging 321dot and abusing that privilege irrelevantly' I told gnome I respect that he creates valuable pages. essentially. objectively speaking, if the page would be decided to be gone and deleted, per the first actual edit... then it's be w/o any references built up off Talk. similarly, I wouldn't have felt the need to apologize to gnome. and really I would want to say something (but this is besides the point <constructive>). but gnome and I. that he makes a page and I tell him it's a mistake say what I think please delete, what would one say. I, not doing that. I hadn't bothered to look into much of what he's done except [Travellers] . :what can I say, sort of sorry. sorry there's no controversy? sorry it shouldn't have happened itself? no... no. well if there's a place for sorry it would be here. maybe that counts. I didn't come here to talk. Ilike I was saying. my persona does not involve the cross talk or 4 different people 2ndifferent topics ever. offline, I'm similarly unbusy with myself. if I weren't (prior to this), I'd have 'known' that I must keep all comments and interactions to a mold wavelength on a high frequency... so I can get by. I really don't know what went wrong. how about i don't know if I was unduly submitted for review and I can't say I shouldn't have been or why. I get the feeling I was to bring attention, but not the being malicious. :if id been on my best behavior it's be cause I knew what I was getting myself into. part of that first comment to 311dot was a strife for preservation. none of my comments, I just want to say, are predacious. I didn't though and wouldn't accuse gnome of creating content deliberately unwisely. [caustic page to WP). :it's really not caustic and it doesn't advertly bother people persay. it's not misinformation, since wiki isnt built that way... for operating/editing... :so if that was the co,emt we're all ,and about, then forget it. I did mean it since I shouldn't have put it in gboard, since it can't be realistic by any means of anyone interpreting. I was wrong. I apologize. :I would like to take my time. looking into researching more about editing, I wouldn't ,ond participating in the Deletion discussion. given that i did come up with the sentence structure with a LLM, perhaps its not fully objectively correct and deserves a strike thru [fork). what I was apologizing to for gnome was for him. so he could get the sort of sloppy look on our accounts, that's what neither of us need. that's how we both are though we have that in common. :as far as being blocked for life? the description above is the argument. I can't find myself to blame someone personally. if u check, I hadn't done that at all. I made no intentional euphanisms against the better nature of any individual. [what I said about the caustic page? that was unnecessarily wrong to do on my part. yes bad behavior) I can learn from my mistakes. this was a speedy block and I hope you make a speedy removal. I have a humble investment. :TY : Banalnasal (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:WALLOFTEXT that nobody's going to read. This is over 1700 words. Try again, no more than 150 words. Yes, reduce it to less than one tenth its current size. Yamla (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2026 (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.
Banalnasal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Society is lucky to have Wikipedia. I believe it's a gift among humans & for humans. WP is an achievement of humanity (IMHO). It's the finest example of collaborative teamwork that the internet has to offer. I've been fairly blocked for carelessly communicating malinformation via the Talk feature. I subscribed to banter and isolation, helping noone. I forced the Internet users to be privy to despicable nonsense, which I incessantly procured selfishly. Nobody should have had to read my slew of meandering ideas or been susceptible to my poor attitude. This was majorly irresponsible of me. I see my wrongdoing and I apologize for destabilizing what you had. Please forgive the actions I've induced, leading up to and including my 'Block', my poor rationale, inconsiderate attitude, & lack of respect for the WP community. There is no excuse. Forgive me & thank you for the contributions you're here to represent. I'm sorry for derailing the community. Thank you for the consideration. (Banalnasal (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC))
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been pending for more than two weeks with no response to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially address these questions.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 11 June 2026 (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.
(Non-administrator comment) You've been blocked for a few reasons, which you haven't really addressed.
First is the personal attack on other editors, then the use of AI, finally it appears that you created your account purely to try to get an article deleted because you didn't like it and not because it's violated Wikipedia policies - instead, it appears that you used AI to try to find a reason to get rid of it because you didn't have a policy-based reason in the first place.
I'm also concerned that your ability to communicate in English isn't sufficient to edit an English encyclopedia.
Can you please address these concerns? Why do you want to be unblocked - what is it that do you want to do on Wikipedia? Blue-Sonnet 21:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Banalnasal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
I was blocked by a bunch of confused people including editors and admins. I also didn't do anything warranting a lifetime block. I did use the internet to make me an argument to delete an article. Then, I found out it was wrong... and admitted to that.
There is a guy AndyTheGrump & another guy TheGnome and they participated on discrediting me avidly, but w/o any tangible evidence. It's on a 'notice talk board'. and also was in the edits of the 'page deletion nomination itself' If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently? I would like to hit up the idea section. I have great ideas. I also would like to double-check & see that the articles TheGnome made do go against guidelines. If it isn't... then I will only be able to post ideas to the idea section. Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?Yes. Everything wasn't chronologically analyzed prior to blocking me. The 'blockage' is a surmounting of here-say (if that can be on the internet). I didn't 'harass' and you should deliberately double-check that.
I was pestered-about immediately (as an unconventional 'talk' on DOT311 talk page) in an assumptive mannerism conveying that I'm out to personally 'discredit' (i prefer this term than 'attack') TheGnome. I did say the proceeding thing due to the advocating (on wikipedia) to contact available Admins at the moment. I also didn't know that what I was doing was wrong. I also couldn't expect that the user who made the page Lew Adelstein Controversy was TheGnome at that time. That accounts flagrantly pounced on my intentions. My intentions were not to cause a stir. My intentions were to argue the dismissal of that wikipedia page.
wikipedia doesn't seem to have a program that aligns all the involvements of a single user. I'm new here and not so great at editing. The fact that it's so easy to get to is somewhat disturbing. I wish to partake in assisting to the nature of the greater-good. The users (AndyTheGrump & TheGnome & myself) aren't bad people, but we aren't really professional. I'm a good person. I learned to be. The user Andy may not yet be, as his Talk page was composed of F this F that. Stalked this guy incessantly apparently... But also, he was following TheGnome's talk page & someone who follows a person who creates articles mainly on irrelavence... is probably an unprofessional loose-cannon. The process of this was inevitably going to be gas-lit. It started when I wrote the first comment to 311DOT. That was unintentional. I do recall that someone somewhere mentioned 'gaslighting' and I incorporated that into an apology for user TheGnome, where it was taken and used kind-of not in my favor.... TheGnome has articles which don't belong on wikipedia and there isn't a process we would expect for removal. (flagging) (perhaps another deletion definition or 2). IMO the website should branch out to show wikipedia as wikimedia and then it is a sort of browsing but through a different viewing glass (nicer simpler only for viewing allowin gfor colors)... This one is mainly html edit type look.
The age range of the guys i'm guessin gwho put articles of these sorts online are probably younger than me (40). They'd have no way to nkow the differenct and that there shouldn't be articles on the Web on WP ref: non-glamorous non-historic.. etc... Now I don't know how to handle that cause I can't explain to these accounts about times and this and that, while taking their accounts and places in mind.
no i didn't warrant a block. but. LLM won't detect LLM to a 100% degree of certainty. Nobody is likely to use LLM, except but to assist.
I don't know why i want this account unblocked, but I don't think I would do anything if it were. I don't need to since I told all these things to able-bodies who will grow older and begin to understand quickly. WP didn't have or anticipate any of todays technologies, including mobile apps/networks + data centers & the new code and Apps that make apps for simple people.
WIKIPEDIA has always seemed to follow the same presets or protocols when it's open/operating. It is editable. It shows stuff. Someone programmed the way it is editable, which can't be changed. The natural processes of massive interest in online and coding (especially when it comes to doing a simple code like WP editing) was inevitable due to overpopulation. Lack of additional jobs, the introduction of tech upon technology including the convenience and consolidations respectively... This can be anybody, but now it's more of a different age range than those who are older could forsee. (not needing to be slower and spend more time talking. if you could imagine a person saying ' just wanted to talk like he was my uncle, saying about how the young kids don't talk to each other . pft'. ok so this is that. but it's not accurate and there is no 'that' cause that would be generalizing and biased and go against... WM. or internet. The youth don't know about the times w/o tech though. Tech like this and that all things consolidate when apparently adequate. Ease of use is the providing factor behind the current term UX. So these guys are unaware that-of it'd be incorrect (posting articles like this?) right. But the older guys also don't think these things cause it's just unnecessary mind-baggage.
With WP developing with this small little things that involve 'people', the things like this have adapted. 'this' this wizard. it's taken on the appearance of that mistakes are inevetable and blocks are understood as mistakable. You want to improve? mask the names of the accounts by allocating a ID# for a new account.
If i went to say that this happens here for 2 reasons. It's like saying This is like this, Since... It's not fair and I'm just gonna have to allow you to get the bigger picture & WM small involvement. Tech consolidates to our liking, for all intensive purposes, to support our survival simply. Today we have wireless networks, and the cables on the ground are all connected. the electricity that flows thru the hardware and LAN cables / ethernet are constantly carrying electricity. The electricity is always more... to sustain this and those kinds of connects are (eg. POE) fully sustainable with an operative web of online machinery. It's only always perfectly operable. Always active. This isn't the case with networking and online. leaving those to see in that a online account can get the better-management 'features' in desktop mode... This takes a lot. But WM oughtn't be viewed in any poor light. It seems to be flourishing, but this page here wikipedia doesn't seem right. And that's what fundamentally THIS is all about. Should the WP be reserved for editors? Should it be visible for viewers only thru an app and wikimedia... should wikipedia.org have a redirect to the wikipedia on wikimedia (now). & that should work? You see thegnome's fix? A page as a redirect, unnecessarily The Travellers. This is something someone does to raise awareness. 'how do we know that we don't see how many people would say that 'we normally call it only...'.... and ... other articles irrelavent as well. But you can see he wants to play a role and has.
so have i. so.... i shouldn't remain blocked except for in that it's impossible to justify unblocking me. Before leading the way to fix thing...
If there is one reason i should be unblocked it's: No you didn't do anything warranting a lifetime block (maybe 4 weeks). You have some good ideas you said you want to put on the idea page. I'm not sure that'll fit there, with what you're talking about. But sure.
That's all I got though for an argument and mutual understanding... and that's fair.
i'm reach out to people for transparency purposes. effectively. this whole wp is too complicated for a single lame viewer. if there were an application process or agreement and wizard to ... become an editor (which would have to be an advertisement :Become an Editor. Are you good with money? yaddayadda)... you'd have people viewing this as viewers. the donate button makes sense. no edit button theres, WP needs to sustain itself 'ill donate'.
Currently, i'm imagining that i click apply. should it be on computers only? caus eyou can do that by having it say 'must be on a computer to do tutorial'... i threw this idea to info @ and oversight @ but it's into the wind.. and considering it might not even be suitable (if correctly pertinent) for an Idea Page... what would they do! now, they aren't thinking that and you are.
There ought to be a check box. by continuing to use this app you agree to the terms and policies of WM this includes both the terms. but also, policies. which enables admins to wield their power when necessary. This has to be coupled with a viewer version wich fits on wm... flagging an article. maybe ai can srutinize it who knows. but enough flags, and the article can be speedydeleted .... all that is a lot of adjustments iimo.... if you were to ask me, if wp had been functioning like i envision currently? would this have happened. my answer is 'its always something' all the things that were seen here with this experience... everything can fit a place of fitting/fixing. but no.
okay? the editors will go thru the policy and a quick intro. then they have to belong and know they are held under an obligation according to the general understanding. thegnome or andythegrump would have never applied... themselves here. The responsibility will have to be assumed as you know you are when we check the terms and conditions. its a digital signature for us.
so if they can go up levels, then that can clear the air on other theings or ideas that are already started perhaps for editor perks. you want Editor I II II IV Admin. you want a separate bio page for the editors if it can-be. or consider more than jus tteh box we currently are standing in. u know its not a cardboard box. if it were, you'd be homeless trying to fix things before himself... more: like me.
Banalnasal (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Decline reason:
I don't know why i want this account unblocked, but I don't think I would do anything if it were.
Fine. That in itself is perfectly good grounds for (a) not unblocking you, and (b) removing your access to this talk page, since you seem to think it is a platform for incoherent, illiterate and misinformed rambling, and personal attacks on other contributors. It isn't. The sole purpose you are given access to your talk page while blocked is to post a block appeal. The above isn't one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Banalnasal, you're not "permanently blocked." You're indefinitely blocked, which means a block until an admin feels that your conduct will improve on English Wikipedia. That could be permanent, if you never give an admin a reason to trust you, but it could also be lifted immediately, by the same token.
- You have talk page access solely to discuss issues related to your block. If you're serious about being unblocked, then you need to stop the long walls of unfocused grievance airing about others, and directly focus on what the problems with your conduct were, how you intend to avoid this conduct in the future, and discuss things that you would like to do to directly improve this encyclopedia. Otherwise, talk page access can be revoked if it's not believed that the editor is making productive unblock requests. You may already be near that point. Editors are not confused.
- In any case, the choice is yours, and whether you change your approach and possibly become a contributor to this project, or you decide to move onto other projects, I wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- We're all here to improve an encyclopedia, but in your very long appeal (which you've been told before is far too long) you're doing things that you've been told aren't acceptable, such as attacking the motivation and ability of other editors: saying another editor
is probably an unprofessional loose-cannon
is not acceptable at Wikipedia and a full personal attack.
You've not shown any understanding of why you were blocked and every indication that you'll continue doing the same thing that resulted in the original block. Unfortunately, it looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia editing it about and how we interact with each other as we improve articles. Long screeds of text with vague suggestions aren't helpful to other editors, Wikipedia operates on the principle of being bold and making improvements yourself.
You want admins to sayYou have some good ideas you said you want to put on the idea page... then I will only be able to post ideas to the idea section.
There is no "ideas page" and I'm really sorry but you haven't shown any good ideas, even if there were such a thing. That's just not how Wikipedia works.
You were blocked for making personal attacks against other editors and your appeal includes even more personal attacks. It also includes off-topic thoughts about electricity and discusses the age of editors - you imply that their views are less important than yours, because you presume they are younger than you. Even if they were, that's just not true. I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be unblocked because you'll continue to cause the same problems if you are. Please also bear in mind that access to your Talk page may be revoked if you carry on making unsuccessful appeals, this one is almost certainly going to be rejected. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
