User talk:Flesek

Welcome!

Hello, Flesek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan mafia

Hello, in response to your e-mail about Draft:Moroccan mafia. The change I made was to fix a problem with one of the cites in the article. At the time ref 70 contained |date=2017-05-05CEST20:31:03+02:00 and I removed the time element from this to give |date=2017-05-05 so removing the error. Date formats are specified in WP:DATES. Keith D (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moroccan mafia has been accepted

Moroccan mafia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Moors. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NebY (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Flesek reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Moors. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 21 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I want to ask to the moderator if it is possible to unblock my page. My page has been blocked for using multiple accounts to edit the “Moors” Wikipedia page which resulted in an edit warring. Although i believe my edits were 100% legitimate, and deletion of these edits were unjustified (in my opinion), i came to conclusion that my behaviour was not the right way to proceed, and i will definitely keep this in mind if i ever come across another argument with other members of the Wikipedia community. After all i only want to help this community enrich itself and grow by sharing my own views, knowledge and perspective on the world by the way of legitimate sources, studies and articles. The main reason why i want my account unblocked is because i want to work further on Wikipedia pages that i have created. I’ve noticed that they still have a lot of faulty mistakes that need to get cleared, but i’m afraid my credibility in editing these pages will go down if i do this with a new account. Therefor i want to ask if you can consider to unblock me. Thanks in advance and i’ll look forward to your decision.Flesek (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, you may request unblock again when you wish to answer CaptainEek's question below. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2022 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have followed the request of Bbb23 ~~~~

Accept reason:

Unblocked by CaptainEek. SQL ^{Query Me!} 04:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

. Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave reviewing the appeal to another admin, but I would note two things. Wikipedia really doesn't want "my own views" (whether yours or mine), and even if you're going and finding sources to support them, reads to me as providing referenced, but unbalanced, writing. Secondly, your appeal covers the edit warring, but other than noting that you were blocked for it, is very light on the sockpuppeting, as well as being particularly reluctant on agreeing you made an issue. Finally, not as part of your appeal, but a general statement - you aren't allowed to edit with "a new account". You are blocked, not this account. --Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list all accounts you have edited from? Thanks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I am of a mind to unblock here, Moroccan mafia is a pretty good page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaptainEek, thanks for the reply. I haven't logged in for quite a while so i'm just seeing your message. My other account is called "Flesekunbanned". Flesek (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: just checking you've seen this, as I imagine any watchlisting fell off in this timespan Nosebagbear (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear heh you're right, it did fall off. To Flesek: I'm unblocking you. Make sure you don't use more than one account, and don't edit war. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek said: "don't edit war". But this is what you're doing right now in Moroccans. Please find your way to the talk page instead of forcing your way (btw I hope you're not connected to the previous IP editing row). –Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CaptainEek. You're right, i took the discussion to the edit page as recommended. Flesek (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Moroccan mafia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Moroccan mafia, 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) 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]