User talk:HeyZeusVictory888

Welcome!

Hello, HeyZeusVictory888, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! HeyZeusVictory888, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Smith–Fischer family tree

Template:Smith–Fischer family tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been removed from List of American Dad! characters and you restored it. That is called WP:Editwarring and is not allowed. The proper move on your part is to post of the article's talp page why you feel it should be restored, and get a WP:Consensus to do so. No consensus, no restoration. I'm removed it again, restoring the status quo ante.Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Wikipedia is not an American Dad! fan website. Your template would be better placed on the American Dad! site on Wikia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to One Ring, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Could you please note that the policy is not to re-insert your preferred text once someone has disputed it, but a) to look up the scholarly evidence (if any) and b) to discuss it on the talk page. Edit-warring is forbidden. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not agree, and you are mistaken, I will concede to just listing Sauron as the original owner for now. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. I am certainly not mistaken on the facts. I am glad you are not going to try to reinsert the list: it is not "semantics" but central to the Ring's function in the story, that it is wholly evil and corrupts anyone who seeks power through it. You are however entirely wrong in edit-warring: you have now inserted something under dispute three times today, and that is, for the record, despite the fact that

a) You have received a formal warning, above;

b) I placed a warning edit-comment, telling you to stop and if need be to go to the talk page instead;

c) I started a discussion exactly on this topic on the talk page, just for you.

That is not an acceptable way to behave on Wikipedia. You cannot bludgeon your point of view into articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twice. I placed it in twice. Not three times. The second time was because you failed to include proper reasoning for removal the first, which you were good to provide the second time. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to take a wrong action because you don't find an explanation to your liking. However, each time I gave you a correct and increasingly detailed account; further, you should not be reverting to edit-warring when invited to discuss on the article talk page, nor attempting to self-justify such edit-warring. The whole battleground mentality is forbidden on Wikipedia; it may be fine on some forums or chatrooms, but it is not permitted here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been battleground mentality in the scenario that my edit did not add anything useful to the page, like your edit of two spaces did. In order to avoid hypocrisy, my edit also served to cut down the number of stray spaces elsewhere in the page, the year of releases, etc., which by coincidence ultimately brought down the page by two spaces, just as yours had added two spaces, something you would have noticed had you seen what was added. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at One Ring. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. see above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2023 (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 One Ring, you may be blocked from editing. Your edit comment "Talk is the place to respond, not randomly placing two spaces on the page in order to have a conversation. That is making unneeded revisions to the page, lest one also makes a useful edit." cannot be described as helpful or collegiate, indeed it is plainly battleground mentality; it also commits exactly the fault which it accuses of. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2023 (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).

HeyZeusVictory888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bbb23 Oh, no, I'm not JesusWins777. I just chose a phonetically similar username to them, because I noticed they were making a lot of the same sort of edits I was making, and I could not think of a name. This was before they were banned, a mistake on my end. Am I allowed to change the name of my username? HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC) :@Jayron32: You originally blocked JesusWins777 for abuse of editing privileges in December last; could you chime in here? HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the information below, this is still a sockpuppet account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2023 (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.

Checkuser note: Technically Unrelated to JesusWins777, but Confirmed to Vexedsmuggery (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and 200MLeunscentedAveeno (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who, per notes here, may be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: I thought of TTT24 when I blocked. Are you going to clean this up, or do you prefer me to do something?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're confident these are TTT24, please do (re-)block as appropriate. Log data made it seem fairly likely at the time, but I'm not great at navigating SPI's our veritable maze of TV-related sockmasters, and once the case got archived without further clerk/CU commentary, I figured it might've been spurious. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: "confident" is a big word. I saw similarities, but with the technical evidence, it seems like it's good enough. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vexedsmuggery should have been reopened, but I see that as a procedural snafu rather than a rejection of your findings, which Roy found "plausible". Nonetheless, given the confusion, I think it would be best for a clerk to deal with all of it, and the easiest way, in my view, is to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24 and provide instructions for the clerk. That sound good?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, works for me :). --Blablubbs (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take care of it later today. RL is interfering at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm declining the request above in light of this info in the mean time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]