User talk:Fake Corny: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:07, 11 March 2024

Edit warring on Capital punishment for drug trafficking

Welcome to Wikipedia. You need to stop edit warring.

Your recent editing history at Capital punishment for drug trafficking 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.

Plus, at the moment you are a Single-Purpose Account (SPA) whose 5 article edits are all on Capital punishment for drug trafficking. 4 of those article edits are reverts, and are within a 24-hour period. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and likely socking.

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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me please! I won't engage in edit wars anymore.

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).

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

Request reason:

I NEED TO EDIT MY OWN TALK PAGE TO BLOCK IMAGESFake Corny (talk) 12:47 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

This is nonsense. You need to address your abuse of multiple accounts. Also. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2024 (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.

Okay then. I was editing this article: Capital Punishment for Drug Trafficking and I admit that it was a mistake. The article got a lot of things wrong. The USA doesn't have the death penalty for drugs. Anyway, I don't care about that article anymore and I can't be bothered to edit any more Wikipedia articles. So I just need to edit MY OWN CSS and JS so that I can hide images I don't want to be seen.

I can't be bothered to edit any more articles! I don't want to edit articles anymore!

I NEED TO BE UNBLOCKED

Okay then. I was editing this article: Capital Punishment for Drug Trafficking and I admit that it was a mistake. The article got a lot of things wrong. The USA doesn't have the death penalty for drugs. Anyway, I don't care about that article anymore and I can't be bothered to edit any more Wikipedia articles. So I just need to edit MY OWN CSS and JS so that I can hide images I don't want to be seen.

I can't be bothered to edit any more articles! I don't want to edit articles anymore! Fake Corny (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK ME PLEASE

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay then. I was editing this article: Capital Punishment for Drug Trafficking and I admit that it was a mistake. The article got a lot of things wrong. The USA doesn't have the death penalty for drugs. Anyway, I don't care about that article anymore and I can't be bothered to edit any more Wikipedia articles. So I just need to edit MY OWN CSS and JS so that I can hide images I don't want to be seen.

I can't be bothered to edit any more articles! I don't want to edit articles anymore!

Decline reason:

That isn't a good enough reason to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2024 (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.

Fake Corny (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK ME

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).

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

Request reason:

I know why I was blocked and I affirm that I won't edit any more Wikipedia articles. I don't need to do it and this is just overreacting!

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. Also, no commitment to improve Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2024 (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.

Fake Corny (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK ME! I GET IT

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).

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

Request reason:

"Edit warring is wrong even if one is right. Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal. Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks," -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

OKAY DEEPFRIEDOKRA! I GET IT. I KNOW I'M RIGHT BUT I DON'T EVEN CARE ANYMORE! I WON'T EDIT WAR.

DO YOU GUYS NOT UNDERSTAND THAT I GET THE MESSAGE! Y'ALL ARE DOING TOO MUCH! I GET IT! YOU CAN UNBLOCK ME NOW!

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. Also, shouting, and not persuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2024 (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.

Fake Corny (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I get it

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) Fake Corny (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I get it

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).

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

Request reason:

"To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk)" I confirm that I understand that I won't disruptively edit articles and I won't violate the three edits rule. I understand all of this. And I know what not to do in a content dispute!

Decline reason:

You aren't trying to convince yourself, you are trying to convince us. This certainly doesn't. Yamla (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2024 (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.

I’m not doing anything wrong

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).

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

Request reason:

"To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk)"

I confirm that I understand that I won't disruptively edit articles and I won't violate the three edits rule. I understand all of this. And I know what not to do in a content dispute! Fake Corny (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2024 (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.

I understand and I really have no intentions of being disruptive

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).

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

Request reason:

"To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk)"

I confirm that I understand that I won't disruptively edit articles and I won't violate the three edits rule. I understand all of this. And I know what not to do in a content dispute!

Can you guys just let me access MY OWN PRIVATE CSS and JS page please, so that I can block some images to make my use of Wikipedia more optimal for me!

I only want to follow the rules and I really don't have any mal intent. Fake Corny (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your requests and shouting are becoming disruptive. Removing talk page access. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2024 (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.

You will not be unblocked solely so you can "access MY OWN PRIVATE CSS and JS page please, so that I can block some images to make my use of Wikipedia more optimal for me!" If this is your only goal, this is the end of the line. --Yamla (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is no need for you to be so mean off the bat and for no reason! Also, there is no "end of the line". I'm not being mean to you guys and you're just picking on me WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ME!

This is a complete joke, I'm being compliant and I have SHCH GOOD INTENTIONS!

I need to edit my own CSS and JS pages so that I can stop seeing some images on my own Wikipedia app.

If you won't unblock me, can you guys at least help me to stop seeing some images on my own personal Wikipedia app.

Jeez, all I need is help.

There's no need for all of this at all.

You guys are being completely unfair! Fake Corny (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also revoked email access. WP:UTRS is your only option to being unblocked. If you make a request there like you've made here, expect to lose access to UTRS, too. --Yamla (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would have too. You won't be unblocked to just block images from view. You should have thought of that before being blocked. Actions have consequences. I suggest you avoid going to articles that potentially have NSFW imagery. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email. We are done here. Don't send any more. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:31, 10 March 2024 edit 331dot (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 180,690 edits →March 2024: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:07, 11 March 2024 edit undo PhilKnight (talk \| contribs) Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators 124,406 edits →March 2024: post
Line 108:		Line 108:

	:And I would have too. You won't be unblocked to just block images from view. You should have thought of that before being blocked. Actions have consequences. I suggest you avoid going to articles that potentially have NSFW imagery. [[User:331dot\|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot\|talk]]) 21:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)		:And I would have too. You won't be unblocked to just block images from view. You should have thought of that before being blocked. Actions have consequences. I suggest you avoid going to articles that potentially have NSFW imagery. [[User:331dot\|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot\|talk]]) 21:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

			:: I received your email. We are done here. Don't send any more. [[User:PhilKnight\|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight\|talk]]) 13:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)