User talk:Dajo767

March 2018

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Counter-Strike (video game), you may be blocked from editing. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated sources

Hi there. I've stumbled across some of your edits. Please familiarize yourself with WP:USERG - in short, sources that anyone can edit (Wikipedia, Liquidpedia, any wiki/wikia really) cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia, because they can be altered by the public at any time. It looks like someone told you this yesterday, but you're still using this as recently as today. Please stop doing this as to avoid being blocked from editing. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to "add a bad source until you can find a good one". Find a good source first, and then add the content. It can wait. And yes, continually adding unreliable/unusable source can eventually lead to a short block. I figured it was worth mentioning, since you had already ignored others telling you this.

Additionally, please familiarize yourself with WP:OSE as well - alluding to other shortcomings on Wikipedia does not absolve you of blame of making bad edits yourself. So please, stop arguing and just cease using WP:USERG type sources. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please read WP:V. Everything needs to be verified with reliable sources on Wikipedia. Not sure what you mean by that last part. I am an Admin. And I'm going to take action if you don't stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 Alright, admin, with all due respect I got a question for you: If I have a newspaper article with me on hardcopy, but I don't find the same story on the newspaper's website, is it possible for me to scan or photograph that article and use that as a source on a wikipedia article? Would it be a good source? (Particularly relevant in my country as internet penetration is low and most of the information is disseminated through newspapers). Dajo767 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:A pair of dumbbells.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:A pair of dumbbells.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 06:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Hair removal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Trim

Nail buffing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Buffer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not include Babylon?

I very much like to suggest that Babylon be included. It was the capital of the Achaemenid Empire and also the birth place of the Jewish Religion. Dajo767 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wish

Hello. Help improvements for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. 125.214.50.221 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok Dajo767 (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir

Sir can you edit actor Vijay profile picture Sachingsuresh (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, give me few days. I have to setup the photoediting softwares for my PC. Dajo767 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Key. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
- Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. I will keep this information in memory. Have a nice day Leschnei Dajo767 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dajo767. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dajo767. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Vijay (actor) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diff: [1] We don't use hyperbolic labels like "blockbuster", "super hit", "flop", "failure", "disaster", etc. Further, any attempt to summarise critical or commercial response needs to be supported by a citation from a reliable source, not pulled out of our own minds. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb "We don't use hyperbolic labels like "blockbuster", "super hit", "flop", "failure", "disaster", etc." is that a wikipedia policy? If so, please guide me. Dajo767 (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in - Dajo767, start here and here. Leschnei (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dajo767 - Hi there, re: your comments on my talk page I'm responding on your talk page instead, just so you have the info handy.

"I only wrote what I learned from about the film he acted." - We can't write about our own personal observations/beliefs/impressions. This is considered original research. As noted on your page, any attempt to summarise critical or commercial response, or any other opinion, needs to be directly attributed to to the source that has that opinion.
"Vijay actor article just seems to be written by Vijay fans, meaning, i don't think the article and it's style of writing meets wikipedia neutrality standards. - Yeah, you're probably correct. We've had an ongoing problem with a disruptive user in particular who kept fluffing up the article to only focus on positive, feel-good facts about Vijay, instead of presenting an objective perspective about the subject. If you look through the article's edit history, you will find him under different account names, Rtyu33, Solomonyuu, Wecanne, Tomjackie, Starunique, Bothiman, etc. "I became his fan after his speech he is a very good person i will never add any thing negative about him"
"about use of hyperbolics, I don't find any wikipedia policy outlining rules against use of such words." Hyperbolic language is just another way to give weight to opinions, especially opinions held by the person adding the content. What objectively, is the difference between a blockbuster and a super-hit? Does a film have to gross twice its budget to be average? 2.5 times its budget to be a hit? Or do we care about entertainment taxes and "nett gross"? There is no objective way to differentiate these labels, and every resource has their own valuation system based on whatever complicated (or not) rules they have.
The more specific answer to your question is WP:NPOV, which I linked to in my first note to you. It says: "Avoid stating opinions as facts". "Prefer nonjudgmental language". If someone at Times of India writes "The film is declared all-time blockbuster status!" or "the film is declared a failure!", those are their opinions. We can incorporate those opinions into our articles, if properly attributed, but we don't regurgitate those opinions verbatim, because the tone is often inappropriate for inclusion. If a reviewer wrote, "the film is a pile of shit", we would probably find a more neutral way to summarise that information. Ex: Rotten Tomatoes uses "fresh" and "rotten" labels, yet we do not use these labels in articles. We use neutral language like "the film received generally negative response from critics". See also WP:PUFFERY, which discourages us from using exaggerated, fluffy language. See also WP:LABEL, which discourages us from using contentious labels. These are the more specific answers to your questions.
"Furthermore, wikipedia is encyclopedia, designed for common people to read and easily understand, not a scientific paper or philoshpical theisis." I'm not quite sure what argument you are making here. That we should use snappy, casual, label-laden language for the common folk? Encyclopedias don't have personalities. They shouldn't read like a blog or sound like someone's opinionated cousin. We present information neutrally, in a clear, professional writing style. We're not here to pander to people's need for exciting prose, or for their need to put every little thing into a well-labeled box.

Hope this all helps. Sorry it's long. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tagging

Hello, please do not add subjective maintenance tags like {{neutrality}} without explaining why you believe that tag is applicable, as you did on Vijay (actor). You may explain the tag on the talk page (preferred) or in the edit summary. For more information please see WP:DRIVEBY. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Air India Express Flight 812, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil Aeronautics Administration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Bad Indian English.jpeg

The file File:Bad Indian English.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World language

~~In the article, the Spanish language has always been considered global, if you do not agree, I recommend opening a discussion thread or waiting for an agreement to be reached in the existing ones.~~

~~You cannot delete or change something established without first reaching a consensus.~~

~~Greetings FornesNF (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)~~ struck comment by sockpuppet of banned user JamesOredan --IamNotU (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dajo - Before making changes in any article, it is always better to first come into its "Talk-File" to discuss the subject and to explain your reasoning - thereby giving other editors the opportunity to comment. --DLMcN (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raised the topic in the talk section of the concerned article World Language Dajo767 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dajo767, fyi I struck out the comment above because the user is banned from Wikipedia, and not permitted to participate in discussions. You probably know this already, but the comment is also incorrect - Wikipedia encourages editors to be WP:BOLD; it's not necessary to get consensus on a talk page before changing something. It's a good idea to do it if you're not sure, but it's not required. If anyone objects to your edits, then you do need to go to the talk page. I hope this helps... --IamNotU (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU Thank you for your watch and blocking the sockpuppet of the disruptor. Also I thank your for your comment and advise. Happy editing Dajo767 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hi, I was editing too hastily and completely misinterpreted recent edits at world language. You had done a good job reverting some recent POV pushing, and - looking at it too quickly - I got it wrong. Have fixed my own mess now. Again, apologies for this, thanks for your edits and keep up the good work! Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand @Jeppiz. We are always busy, and mistakes are bound to happen during these times. Happy editing. Dajo767 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supra-regional languages in world languages

Hi there, I understand that you are in the midst of an edit war at World language and do not want to partake in any part by adding further fuel to it. Regarding the recent revert of my edit to include German and Portuguese on the list, I understand where you're coming from by having the list kept as official languages of the UN. Nevertheless, I feel that it was better to have kept these two under the smaller "supra-regional" section as before your complete removal of them.

Of course, they are not global languages like English and French but they play just as much of important roles in regional and international affairs as say, Mandarin and Arabic, and are included as international languages in reputable sources. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this. Moalli (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moalli Ok thank you for this message. I will add them back into that smaller category, like before, once again back once the heat of this battle subsides, maybe in a day or two. Can I ask you to be patient until then? Dajo767 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC). Oh and quickly I also removed them from the template 'Varieties of World languages'. I will add Portuguese and German back in two days. Dajo767 (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, also best of luck with the edit conflict. Thank you for your diligence maintaining a neutral POV! - Moalli (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at World language, you may be blocked from editing. Sources need to directly support the material they are cited for. Your assertion that being an official and working language of the United Nations makes something a world language is a textbook example of original research. TompaDompa (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dajo - TompaDompa is right... Listen to what he says - (in fact, perhaps even give your editing a break for a while). --DLMcN (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at World language. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead - who cares? You dont respect Wikipedia Neutrality policy and use biased sources Dajo767 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#World language

As I suggested that you do, I have now started a discussion at WP:NPOVN, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#World language. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#User:Dajo767

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: TompaDompa please never write messages on my talk page again. Dajo767 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa is obligated to inform you of an ANI post if one is raised. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Please see the talk section [[2]] below for further information

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Your clear cut ownership of articles, your personal vendetta against another user, completely unacceptable personal attacks against another editor, your unwillingness to listen to other editors and much more. And to top it all off, after having been warned for edit warring and of the 3RR, and in the middle of a thread discussing your edit warring and other activities, you decided to perform yet another revert and removal of edits, well words just fail me. Normally for a first block I would just do a temp block, but since you have your fingers completely in your ears and are running afoul of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT it's just going straight to an indefinite block. You can try and request an unblock and another admin will review.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

Dajo767 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not do any further reverting. As per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dajo767 I was informed about how placing another username's on the template was wrong. All I did was abide by this warning and remove the username from this template as did in no way perform any sort of reverting. I just updated the reasons due to warning of placing the name of the user on the templates. Dajo767 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring was only one small part of the problem here. Yamla (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2021 (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.

Also it should be noted that this is the edit in question. You reverted someone else putting a template in there about something not being sourced with the claim that there's no dispute over this. Which there clearly is, someone put the template in. Matter is, you removed it which is a revert. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That edit is only my third revert within the 24 hour window of 13th May, 2021. So since i have not reverted a fourth time I still have not broken the three-revert rule that day as I did not revert a fourth time. And the action I faced was an immediate infinite ban. Canterbury Tail Dajo767 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note you reverted 4 times. 1, 2, 3, & 4. However if it was just an edit warring over reversion I wouldn't have blocked you for the period I did, It would only have been for 24 hours. It was everything else as well and then reverting a 4th time that pushed it over the edge. Canterbury Tail talk 02:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail I understand my infractions and wikipedia policy violations, it was not just edit warring but personal attacks and general uncivil behaviour. I will remedy myself. Just another point: slapping a infinite block on me is seemingly too harsh for two reasons

this is my first block I received and for the larger part of the 1,200 edit contributions I have made to wikipedia and wiktionary, I have tried to be co-operative.
An infinite ban creates a distress in me as I am afraid that my case maybe pending before administrators and may stretch on for years, effectively making it a lifetime ban. This is distressing in light of the 1,200 contributions done in good faith over a squabble with another editor on the site. I thank you for considering my views. If you reduce my block length to a six month block, I am still willing to take this. I am not defending my actions or behaviour or accuse the other part as I am clearly in the wrong. But it is also worth noting that the other party used a deleted message on the userpage of Jeppiz which lead me to me being banned. Also the user's whose userpage I posted it had no clear intention for such a consequence of a infinite block length to be slapped on me. (Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dajo767 ). Even though it is obviously clear that I am wrong, the other editors active on talk page, besides the accusing user TompaDompa; users such as DLMcN LiliCharlie and Jeppiz had no intention to have me blocked - or atleast not an infinite block.

I urge you please to reduce my block length to a temporary one so I may not go through the anguish of a feeling of uncertainty Dajo767 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so here's a possible way forward. Do be aware that the block is indefinite, not infinite. Seems subtle but there is a difference, you have not been banned from Wikipedia, just blocked until such time as you are potentially unblocked.

Just so you know I will not be the one reviewing your unblock requests. This is to allow other administrators to put their opinion and perspectives into the matter. Other administrators are free to override my block as they see fit in the event of a successful unblock request. So the question now is how do you make a successful unblock request?

My recommendation to you is to remove the two currently open unblock requests you have on the page below. Trust me, neither one as they're worded will get you unblocked at this time so they aren't helping you. Next make a new unblock request. I also recommend you do it in a new talk section so it's not among the clutter currently in this section. Now give this one some serious thought. A reviewing administrator will want to see each reason for your block being addresses, so I recommend you deal with each of the points individually in the request. The main thing I urge is to not make this about other editors, make it purely about your own actions that lead here. I will say the edit warring was the least of my concerns with your edits. I think you found yourself in a situation where another editor had come into an area and you got frustrated, so frustrated you couldn't see the wood for the trees and it built and built until you did some very questionable things. Do be aware that your actions of declaring you will always revert the edits of another user no matter what they are, and your comments and attacks on the editor are completely unacceptable and do warrant such a long block, so these are the things you need to address.

Also note that in the event of an unblock that other editors will likely pay more attention to your edits, so how you say your behaviour will be is what you will be held to. Just to let you know.

So don't rush your unblock request. Making multiple unblock requests and having multiple declined requests just makes it more likely that another administrator will take it seriously. So really think about it before typing.

Note I hold you no malice but you need to accept that your behaviour and those comments were not acceptable, and you need to understand why and address why in your request. Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have over 1,000 plus contributions on wikipedia and this is my first ever block. And it is also an infinite block. This is too harsh. I understand my mistake. But this my first block from an editor who has above 1000 contributions. If I were given a temporary block, I am willing to accept it. So you can please change from an infinite to a temporary Yamla Canterbury Tail @Canterbury and Yamla: . i am being accused of personal vendetta. I have no personal vendetta against TompaDoma . instead I was collaborating with him on improving this article at the begining. But when things were not going in co-operative manner the feuds started. Other contributors know the history. Why don't you see the talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language . In fact it was upon the said user's, TompaDompa, suggestion, with whom I have an alleged vendetta against, that I initially requested to add protection on the article. Here is it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=974974902#Please_I_request_this_article_be_extend_protected_to_prevent_sockpuppets_from_editing. i worked with users DLMcN LiliCharlie and Jeppiz and also TompaDoma. As you can see TompaDoma also once wrote this on the talk page "I think it's important to retain the English>French>Spanish>Portuguese>other languages hierarchy to accurately reflect the sources, but otherwise I don't have much of an opinion about how to do it. This is not really a topic that I have a great interest in (I happened to come here while following a WP:SOCK that edited a page on my watchlist), so I doubt I will find the time to contribute much more on this page, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)" at this talk page section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Spanish_language_is_also_a_World_language . So it was initially only users DLMcN LiliCharlie and Jeppiz and myslef involved in improving this article, but we did listen to some of TompaDoma's suggestions and there was no personal animosity among us and tompaDoma was generally inactive during the initial days. But on 6th February 2021 he started deleting large sections of the article withing a few hours, without prior discussion in the talk. he removed them one by one in a few hours. Then there was a temporary edit war between him and me as I was trying to restore the page as I did not know what he was doing as it was sudden. check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_language&type=revision&diff=1005118279&oldid=1005110524 . you can also check the page history logs on 01:23, 6 February 2021 . As it came without any prior discussion and from TompaDoma who said who did not have enough time to contribute to this page earlier, I clearly did not understand. Atleast until this point there was no discord or animosity among us and as I said we considered his suggestions. But after the this initial surprise, i contacted two wikipedia administrators regarding the edit war issue, but they did not wish to intervene here. I appealed to them on the same day the first edit war occured See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Request_for_Article_protection. . But until then things were harmonious among us. If you can see all the talk page sections before that day and before this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Stop_disrupting_this_artcile. you will find there was no arguments among us and no anger. I know after this things started becoming sour between me and TompaDompa, especially after the administrator declined to intervene. I apologize for the subsequent behavior directed at him. I ask that my block be changed from infinite to a temporary one atleast if not total unblock considering this is my first block and considering over 1000 edit contributions I made from this account Dajo767 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to the accusation of ownership , it was the user TompaDompa who deleted every other contributor's edits and replaced it with his own. You can check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_language&type=revision&diff=1020937438&oldid=1005959032 . You can see the older version on as of 08:01, 10 February 2021 has contributions from other contributors including TompaDoma . But the version as of 23:06, 1 May 2021 has only TompaDoma's edits and contributions. I know my behaviour was wrong but it was not me who is guilty of ownership , and if they see correctly they may know who is really guilty for ownership. But I know the behaviour and language used at TompaDoma was wrong. I urge the administrators to see that TompaDompa used a deleted section of Jeppiz 's talk to have me blocked. This was not what Jeppiz wanted. I understand it was wrong on my part to call his and attack him personally, and I know my mistake. But why don't the administrators see that the judgement to place an infinite ban for a first ban for an experienced editor with 1000 contributions is harsh ? Dajo767 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

User is requesting unblock at UTRS appeal #43301 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #43301 is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I see two open (i.e. neither accepted nor denied) unblock requests on this page, and AFAICT you still have talk page access. I see from a posting that you have also requested unblocking via UTRS, something generally only necessary if you lost talk page access. This suggests at one time you had 3 open unblock requests, maybe still do if the UTRS request wasn't quickly denied. This is never a good sign. There's never a reason you need more than one, if you have something else to say, either close your earlier request/s yourself or just add new comments below as you sort of did anyway. Also as for your unblock request and subsequent comments, I suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM. Finally, I'd note you were challenged at ANI by an uninvolved admin on your personal attacks before blocking. As several editors pointed out, your response left a lot to be desired. Your defence in part seemed to be pointing towards out personal attacks you made. Another part of your defence was suggesting it was out of context. However I cannot imagine many situations on Wikipedia where context really matters when you said "And do not forget that he uses misdirection and manipulation - a psychopathic editor". Actually, offhand, the only situations I can think where it matters would be if you were quoting someone or if it was a joke. Maybe a simple acknowledgment you were wrong and the language used was unacceptable would have been enough at ANI, but I suggest you try to do better when requesting an unblock. Especially if there's a big 'but' thrown into said acknowledgment. Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne Thank you for these suggestions my request at UTRS was closed and I am still blocked. Unfortunately I lost my tracking code to check the decision, but I know from a message which an admin from UTRS posted above. If I asked if you could appeal to an admin on my behalf, and convince him that I understand my guilt and will not further attempt to violate Wikipedia codes, will you do it to have my unblocked again, so that I may continue contributing? Dajo767 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

requesting assistance concerning my block status.

@GeneralNotability: @Oshwah: Requesting intervention for my blocked status. Please see the sections above this which directly discuss the block GeneralNotability Oshwah Dajo767 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message: Concerned parties investigating the block case against me would like to check these following contributions for this article, the article involved in getting me blocked from wikipedia, below and may find them useful. Dajo767 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of showing you: these contributions for this article were done in good faith by me to protect the article from sock puppet attacks and vandalism which was occurring prior. I just thought that you could also see my efforts to guard this concerned article while you weigh your decision to unblock me. Thank you Yamla Canterbury Tail and other admins Dajo767 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]] - Request I placed for article protection of the concerned article at WP:RFPP for ECP lock - on August 26 2020
[[4]] - the administrator placing the ECP lock - on August 26 2020
[[5]] - me thanking the administrator for granting the ECP protection - on August 26 2020
[[6]] - Request I placed for page protection with another admin after 5 months and after the ECP lock expired - on 4th February 2021
[[7]] - Admin's request for reason and admin's approval of reason for granting the page protection. - on 4th February 2021
[[8]] - admin granting the WP:PCPP lock - on 12 February 2021.

Dajo767 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

message: more evidence of mine and other editor's good-faith efforts. And final apology and promise of rectification

You could also benefit from knowing that reason the article changed protection was because of sockpuppet attacks. Please note that the talk page sections, discussing these issues of sock puppetry and vandalism for which the article changed protection, were deleted.

Here is the version of the talk page as it was at the time it was suffering from sock puppetry and vandalism - [[9]] .
Current version of the talk page looks like these - [[10]]
So looking at the current talk page it is easy to not see the problems I and other sincere editors (such as User:DLMcN|DLMcN User:LiliCharlie|LiliCharlie and User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz) helped fix for this article during the earlier days, much before this ugly and unfortunate edit war and personal assault started.

Although I did wrong in conducting myself and assaulting the other member, I do realize my mistake, and I promise to conduct myself in the proper way in the future. Yamla Canterbury Tail GeneralNotability Oshwah Dajo767 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me. If you want to make another unblock request, make one. --Yamla (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2021 (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).

Dajo767 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my first ever block after 1,200 edit contributions I made to Wikipedia; and I realize my mistake and apologize for it; and I promise to conduct myself properly in the future Dajo767 (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please wait at least one month before creating yet another request. When the month is over, please create one single, concise request that answers the following questions:
1) What exactly was the mistake? 2) Why can we be sure that it won't happen again? 3) What will you do next on Wikipedia?
Your answer should ideally be no longer than three paragraphs, and not more than 500 words overall. Focus on your behavior that led to the block, not the behavior of others, and not the large amount of helpful contributions that happened in the past. Ignore the whole protection-thanking-thing listed above. Be concise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2021 (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.

UPDATE about my block status.

Hello. This is an update about my block status. My account was blocked indefinitely after my edits on the article World language. I wish to let you know that I am using this opportunity to take a break from editing the English Wikipedia, and I will not be appealing my block any time soon. The primary reasons for me getting blocked was because of edit war and difference in POV with another editor. This is my first block I was faced. I tried to keep this article in Neutral POV Wikipedia:Neutral point of view also fighting sock puppets for almost a year. But this is a break I will take from English Wikipedia and won't be appealing my block status. Dajo767 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Dajo767/sandbox

Hello, Dajo767. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Dajo767/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Dajo767/sandbox

Hello, Dajo767. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]