User talk:Cleter

Welcome!

Hi Cleter! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

lizthegrey (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Anglo-Ashanti wars

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anglo-Ashanti wars, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature

The signature you're currently using is unreadable. Could you please use a signature that is more readable? There's a guideline at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 18:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I good now?🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤) 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤) 22:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging city articles

There is nothing wrong with these city articles. Why do you feel you need to "rearrange" them? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"nothing wrong"? Can I have a little more information on what's going on here? I feel the need to "rearrange" just like any other editor. If you believe my edits were somehow nonconstructive we can talk to come to a compromise. I was just reflecting these articles to arrange per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline where it is important to begin with 1. the city name, 2. what state its in (in this case, Texas), 3. what county(ies) it is in. I edited articles that had out of date content as well as put the cart after the horse by moving county information after Texas, since the state a city is in talkes priority. Clarification would be appreciated, thanks. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making work for yourself. "Not an improvement" is a common edit summary when an edit is, well. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well in that case here's my answer: (inhales)

It is an improvement. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:MOS states all articles should be written the way you are going through and editing as such? oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the way I'm writing them, but I'll stop for now so we can discuss this. I just want to begin city articles with the fact that they're cities in their state, I don't want to rush into county statistics. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style if you think there should be only one way of writing articles on Wikipedia before doing Wikipedia:Mass editing without bothering to gain any kind of consensus. oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Editors who carry out mass editing are required to be responsive to complaints while the mass editing is ongoing. They should be prepared to interrupt the process and to check if there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed first before continuing.” I don’t think there should only be one way, I just see that one way being the most beneficial. Anyone can revert my edits with a reasonable, well, reason. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert your edit, and you reverted it back. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what justification do you have for rereverting it? 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 23:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cleter: You might want to read WP:BRD before you reinstate any more of your edits which have been reverted. Bazza (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s still not an excuse to go to my contributions page and revert every single edit I’ve done without proper reasoning. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 13:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have had three experienced editors contact you about your editing. I would suggest you stop reverting, and start discussing. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reverting anymore, I'm all ears, they're the ones not discussing and addressing my edits. I'm serious, check my contributions! 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 16:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am bothering to gain consensus, that's why we're here, talking. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 21:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. oncamera _{(talk page)} 20:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I want to address the issue you mentioned, but I'm not sure which specific edit or article you're referring to. Could you please provide more details or a link to the edit so that I can understand and rectify the situation appropriately? 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 21:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit I reverted. oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have 503 edits. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, thank you for the introduction to the contentious topic, I was commenting on the talk. I appreciate the clarity. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 13:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Your recent editing history at User:Jalos92 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting comments

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors, as you did at Talk:Minneapolis. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. oncamera _{(talk page)} 01:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Just kidding, thank you too. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you NOT tag me like that.

That situation regarding WaRei was already solved at least a week ago. Don't tag me with an uneccesarily rude comment in the talk page summary. Better yet, Don't mention me AT ALL in a talk page I stopped involving myself in AGES AGO. I already have issues with other editors being indirect jerks to me for no real reason, please don't be one of them. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 01:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove the image, I wasn't rude. I'm not gonna play this game rn. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Unexplained block

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:35, 9 February 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.

🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to convince an admin that your behavior at WT:No Nazis, Talk:Israel–Hamas war, User:Jalos92, and logging into your blocked sock account to troll won't recur if you'd like to be unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how do I do that? 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 02:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I would like to express my deepest apologies for my past actions on Wikipedia. I understand that my use of multiple accounts (@jalos92 and @edward pluribus unum) was a violation of Wikipedia's policies, and I take full responsibility for my actions. After some time, I have decided to take a clean start approach. I acknowledge the importance of transparency and accountability in contributing to Wikipedia, and I am committed to adhering to the highest standards of integrity and honesty moving forward.

I would like to request the opportunity to resume editing and contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. I assure you that I will abide by all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and I am willing to undergo any necessary scrutiny or probationary period to demonstrate my commitment to being a constructive editor. I understand that rebuilding trust may take time, and I am prepared to work diligently to earn back the community's confidence. Please, just one more time?

Sincerely, 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 13:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This addresses only one reason why you were blocked, and it contains empty promises that were probably written by an AI chat bot. AI chat bots are very good at making promises, but they're not so good at explaining what the problem actually was. Also, see Wikipedia:Standard offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 9 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Community, I apologize for my actions, which included: 1. I was recklessly edit warring and trolling on my sock Jalos92 when I should have made efforts to reach consensus with the other editors. 2. I was not adhering the the guidelines to contentious topics on Israel-Hamas war. I will not longer comment recklessly but rather provide insight responsibly. 3. My behavior at WP: No Nazis included a misunderstanding which I was not able to fully address and close due to a block. I would like to request the opportunity to resume editing and continue to address topics I have begun such as a talk in Mexico. Please, just one more time?

Decline reason:

The standard offer is available to you. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 9 February 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.

Ponyo decline reason

@Ponyo, your decline reason may have not been properly addressed, I have already explained my errors and how I will proceed with caution in the future. The reason I made that request was so I do NOT use the standard offer. Therefore, I will redo my request. I hope this clears the confusion. Thank you. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any confusion on Ponyo's part. I believe that she and another administrator are saying that the standard offer is the only path to you being unblocked. Two more things: you have not explained the socking with User:Edward pluribus unum, and this is a CU block; therefore, you can be unblocked only by an administrator with the consent of the CU-blocker or by another CU, which both Ponyo and NinjaRobotPirate are.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I said so too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Community, I would like to express my deepest apologies for my past actions on Wikipedia. I understand that my use of multiple accounts (@jalos92 and @edward pluribus unum) was a violation of Wikipedia's policies, and I take full responsibility for my actions. After some time, I have decided to take a clean start approach. I acknowledge the importance of transparency and accountability in contributing to Wikipedia, and I am committed to adhering to the highest standards of integrity and honesty moving forward. I would like to request the opportunity to resume editing and contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. I assure you that I will abide by all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and I am willing to undergo any necessary scrutiny or probationary period to demonstrate my commitment to being a constructive editor. I understand that rebuilding trust may take time, and I am prepared to work diligently to earn back the community's confidence. Please, just one more time? Sincerely,🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 5:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

"Talk page access revoked due to repeated, disruptive unblock requests and a bad case of WP:IDHT" --Bbb23 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:05, 10 February 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.

Talk page access revoked due to repeated, disruptive unblock requests and a bad case of WP:IDHT.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #84820

All things considered, user should wait six months before again requesting unblocking -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timer reset due to request at User talk:Edward pluribus unum. Six months from now is 2024-08-28. --Yamla (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And over at User talk:DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph). Six months from now is 2024-11-21. --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

This edit added a copyright violation to Wikipedia. I see that you are blocked; if you ever come back, please do not do this again. John (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]