User talk:Futuristicediting

Blocked unnecessarily

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all few editors here revert just anything even without reading it. There is no freedom of speech here. Many articles which were needed to be moved were moved. For example Albany in New York must be written Albany, NY then why not the places in Delhi. Many of the articles which I created and I moved it were reverted, which was my right because I created it. I added references as well but some people keep on reverting the articles and blocking people. I invested my time and energy here and what I got is block. I heard many stories on the internet like mine that people were bullied here.Futuristicediting (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address your disruptive edits, including 85 edits to this very request, mostly one character at a time. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 April 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.

Lost hope, bye forever

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).

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

Request reason:

I was told that it's not someone's property if they created an article, it's also not a property of someone who revert someone's hard work on any article. They don't even read while reverting. I even asked to close my account after getting bullied here. But they did nothing. I joined 18 years ago and created many articles. If it's a free encyclopedia then why people are getting bullied. They give their time on something and people revert articles even there's a reference there. I heard many stories like mine. If they will not let others create articles, who will give time here? To Be honest it's like living in matrix and for sure it is. Where you don't know if you are talking to a human or an NPC. I am not saying that the articles I created are my property but it's also not the property of someone who revert people's hard work on a topic.Futuristicediting (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block, which is clearly spelled out: disruptive editing (tons of unexplained name changes/moves, and those 85 name changes. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 8 April 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.

There's a misunderstanding

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).

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

Request reason:

If it's free encyclopedia then why people bully others. Who gave him the right to damage the work on which someone gave his/her 100%. They don't let anyone edit anything. There is a Indigo Line Delhi Metro article about a metro line which will not be a separate metro line instead will be an extension of the Green Line. I requested the merger and I even edit the Green Line and they reverted it. Many names in hindi of the metro stations were wrong and corrected it and they revert it. This is actually not free encyclopedia instead few people don't let others participate. I even requested to close my account after getting bullied but they did nothing. Many people suffered the same. If you are talking about the User name change request then it was not happening so I thought maybe I didn't do it properly so I did it few times. If you are talking about my talk page edit, I'm sorry because I wasn't aware. Futuristicediting (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't an unblock request as much as it is an attempt to blame others. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 8 April 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.

Don't remove declined unblock requests from this page while you are still blocked. If you continue to do so, your ability to edit this page will also be removed. stwalkerster (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that "free encyclopedia" means that people can do whatever they want without restrictions or limitations. That's not true. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No dear, I know it's not like that. I first wanted to delete my account like we always do on other sites but here I am not getting that option to completely delete my account. At least talk page, notifications and user page should be deleted. I didn't use it for 18 years and I tried to added few articles and a guy named Dhruv Edits purposely deleted my pages. Then this guy with the ID Kashmiri did the same. I always corrected the names of the places and added information about them and they said you can't add what you already know instead add a reference. I added that too, even though they deleted that. I corrected the information and they reverted. At least think like a friend. Futuristicediting (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you believe me, but I know I'm honest. I sometimes feel innocent people face many challenges and sometimes have to prove their honesty. We met many people in our lives but only few are trustworthy. I never met someone who's loyal. Futuristicediting (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Futuristicediting I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. Wikipedia isn't a place where you can add what you know, it's where you can add what references support. See Help:Referencing_for_beginners. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear I added the reference too even though they reverted. Some people delete everything. Every single thing. As if they don't want us to write anything. I'm not sure but they're bots, AI or NPCs. After talking to you guys, I released humans are here too. Thanks. Futuristicediting (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there is no means of deleting accounts, as legally all edits must be attributable to someone. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About your block

Hi @Futuristicediting,

The fact that you got blocked and that different administrators did not agree to unblock your account means only one thing: that your editing was very disruptive for the Wikipedia community.

You did not bother to respond to several messages posted to you by various editors. That's not how Wikipedia works. If someone is approaching you with a polite message that there's a problem with your editing, you are expected to discuss it and not continue with disruption. Communication is key.
You can't just come and rename 100+ pages in one go only because you like a different version better. There have been several editors before you who had worked on these articles, and they made an editorial choice to keep that particular name. The reason is that Wikipedia has a series of policies and guidelines related to article titles. For instance, the article about Albany, NY is not situated at Albany, because the term Albany may refer to several places and other subjects, and so "NY" has been added as a disambiguator. However, in virtually all your renames, a disambiguator was not necessary. You were told this explicitly, yet you completely ignored the message.
If an admin is telling you to read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template, it means precisely that: you should first read the guide, and only then submit an unblock request based on what you've learned from the guide. Yet, again you ignored the message and used the unblock template only to vent your frustration. I don't think the community is prepared to bear with it for much longer, and so if you continue, don't be surprised that you will be blocked from posting even on your Talk page.
Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech. Wikipedia is a project run by a private US entity named Wikimedia Foundation. By taking part in this project you accept its terms and conditions, none of which permits you to post whatever you fancy. If you are after free speech, I suggest you consider creating own personal website that only you edit. Or just visit the Speakers' Corner in London's Hyde Park.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could be wrong in using Wikipedia because I was unsure about few things but please don't do personal attacks on me. Futuristicediting (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack but an accurate comment. A lot of your recent edits just changed 1 character, often to a different and incorrect spalling of you username. I don't think those were mistakes . Doug Weller talk 06:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet heart I am talking about, your comment to create my own website and also to go to Hyde Park. It's Spelling nit spalling and your username not you username. Futuristicediting (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My previous message was for Kashmiri. I was talking about his spelling errors and accidentally instead of Not I typed nit. Futuristicediting (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is one a spelling error and one an accident? It was me who wrote "spalling". But why is your spelling a mistake and others show someone can't spell? Do you also have Parkinson's? Sorry if my finger trembled and slipped. But your edits were not accident but deliberate messing around. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Parkinson's, please no personal attack. A Nobel man once said leave past and work on the future. Whatever happened, it's past. My intentions were good, maybe I was not aware about rules and regulations here. Let's start a new chapter. Let me be your friend. Give me a chance. Futuristicediting (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do. That caused my spelling error, i don’t know if you have it and that caused your spelling error. But you need to appeal your block again or just accept it and leave. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in karma. We have karmik accounts with other people. I believe you blocked me because I must have blocked you in previous birth. Futuristicediting (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you my mother in law from my past life. If a child do mistake the mother forgive and let the child understand what's right and what's wrong. You are treating me like your daughter in law, whom you hate. Futuristicediting (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I heard some people don't have internal monologue and can't imagine picture in their heads. Strange na. Futuristicediting (talk) 07:44, 9 April 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).

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

Request reason:

What is the TAT of block? I was blocked for 31 hours then they blocked again. Are they doing it purposely? I requested to change my username and I thought it's not happening so I did it few times. Don't let this little baby unhappy Futuristicediting (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unclear if this is an unblock request or a deliberate attempt to waste our time. Given the above, it appears to be the latter. Yamla (talk) 19:48, 9 April 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.

Any Admin looking at this should look at the 85 edits. Most if not all made odd changes to their current username. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I looked at the block and have disabled their access to the talk page. Futuristicediting can use the standard methods to request unblocking. Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure that's the best thing to do, no one including Futuristicediting was benefitting from this. And we know no appeal will be granted. Doug Weller talk 06:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]