User talk:Derbyboy2890

March 2020

Hello, I'm M.Bitton. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Algerian War have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But France did militarily win after Operation Jumelles so I believe it would be correct to regard this war as a french military victory but a FLN political victory Derbyboy2890 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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 noticeboards.
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 Algerian War, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Thepenguin9 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2020 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Anglo-French War (1627–1629). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bobherry Talk Edits 16:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Derbyboy2890. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 3 April 2020 (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).

Derbyboy2890 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2020 (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 sorry for my inaccurate editing on certain wiki pages. I request an unblock please as I wish to create a wiki page Derbyboy2890 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an unblock 1. I was blocked for Abusing multiple accounts Which I am sorry about 2. I will not repeat this violation again 3. I will instead make useful contributions like creating wiki pages on topics that do not have one Derbyboy2890 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am once again requesting an unblock 1. I was blocked for Abusing multiple accounts Which I am sorry about 2. I will not repeat this violation again 3. I will instead make useful contributions like creating wiki pages on topics that do not have Derbyboy2890 (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m am requesting an unblock, I was blocked for disruptive edits which i promise not to continue. I want to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive and helpful manner. Derbyboy2890 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an unblock 1. I was blocked for Abusing multiple accounts Which I am sorry about 2. I will not repeat this violation again 3. I will instead make useful contributions like creating wiki pages on topics that do not have one, I would like a response this time please Derbyboy2890 (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an unblock request, nobody will see it. You need to follow the guidance at WP:GAB, and make another formal unblock request so that other administrators will see it. I'd advise you to list any and all accounts you have created, and to be a lot more fulsome in your comments if you want to convince an administrator that you are not going to continue to be disruptive if unblocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Derbyboy2890, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

GirthSummit _(blether) 10:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Derbyboy2890 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for my disruptive editing I won’t do it again and I will contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner. Derbyboy2890 (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address your sock puppetry. You can ask for the standard offer, which requires that you go six months without engaging in sock puppetry or editing English Wikipedia while logged out. That would be approximately six months from now, since you've evaded your block this month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2020 (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.

Should anyone ever think unblocking would be a good idea

Obviously that would be at least six months from now, since their latest sockpuppet was just yesterday. However, should that day arrive please see Talk:English Americans#Locating the English Diaspora is a fraudulently cited reference. Derbyboy2890's sockpuppet completely fabricated a quote in order to support content they had made up, there is no upside to letting this person edit again as their edits cannot be trusted. FDW777 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: Yeah ok no need to rub salt into my wounds. The only reason I added that fabricated quote was because you wouldn’t allow the Masaman video as a reference as you called it “unreliable” despite the fact he produces high quality videos and his entire channel is dedicated to videos on the ethnic groups of the world I would say it’s a highly reliable source but yes I shouldn’t have added that fabricated quote but it was only because you (wrongly) called my other source unreliable. Also I would like to add that nearly all of my edits after my initial 2 month phase of being quite disruptive (because I didn’t understand the rules and how to edit and add sources properly) are constructive and improve many pages. Like my edit to the Polish uprising 1918-1919 added the casualties and strength of both forces and I even created a new page on the battle of Ksar Ghilane, not to mention all those edits I made improving random pages on my ComputerNerd6788 account. Was there any reason to remove these edits. Also I am quite annoyed at myself for not learning how to edit properly and not be disruptive back when I first made this account over year ago (time does fly by) as I has ruined my chance of actually editing properly when I actually understand how to now. I know that you never want me to be able to edit ever again (I assume) but keep in mind I was 16 when I made this account and I am now 18 so I have matured a lot over the last year when it comes to the internet. Derbyboy2890 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: Any chance of you acknowledging or replying to me? Derbyboy2890 (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "woe is me" post ignores reality. You claim "Masaman" on Youtube is a "highly reliable source", yet he is nothing of the kind. He's a self-published source, since anyone can upload anything they like to Youtube (subject to the content not being illegal of course). That you claim his videos are "high quality" is completely irrelevant to their reliability, since an allegedly slickly produced video says more about the production skills than the reliability of the content of the videos.

Your best option right now is to wait six months for the standard offer. "Wait" of course meaning do not attempt to edit the English wikipedia under any circumstances. Should you manage to do that, you will need to post a convincing unblock request. "Convincing" of course meaning that you will need to address past mistakes, including but not limited to quote fabrication. FDW777 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: Ok thank you for the reply I didn’t know about the self-published source rule. I will wait until these 6 months are up and take the standard offer and hopefully after my unblock request I will be unblocked. Derbyboy2890 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]